Open Carry in the news KHQ interview with Jeff Hayes

[sirpuma]

Not to beat a dead horse, but ...

coun·sel [koun-suhl] Show IPA noun, plural coun·sel for 3, verb, coun·seled, coun·sel·ing or ( especially British ) coun·selled, coun·sel·ling.
noun
1. advice; opinion or instruction given in directing the judgment or conduct of another.
2. interchange of opinions as to future procedure; consultation; deliberation.

coun·cil [koun-suhl] Show IPA
noun
1. an assembly of persons summoned or convened for consultation, deliberation, or advice.
2. a body of persons specially designated or selected to act in an advisory, administrative, or legislative capacity: the governor's council on housing.

And regardless of what everyone has heard, irregardless is not really a word.

ir·re·gard·less [ir-i-gahrd-lis] Show IPA
adverb Nonstandard .
regardless.

Origin:
1910–15; ir-2 (probably after irrespective ) + regardless

Can be confused:  irregardless, regardless (see usage note at the current entry ).

Usage note
Irregardless is considered nonstandard because of the two negative elements ir- and -less. It was probably formed on the analogy of such words as irrespective, irrelevant, and irreparable. Those who use it, including on occasion educated speakers, may do so from a desire to add emphasis.

"So regardless of the Mayor's opinion, the City Council has counseled him on the proper course of action."

Normally I don't try and correct people on grammar, spelling and such because it doesn't matter how many times you tell these young college graduates the differences between Their, There and They're or Its and It's they will always do whatever they want and don't really care what others think.

 

[hadji]

Although many engage in an easy going informality on this forum,
rest assured that formal communications, at least regarding this issue,
are being thoroughly vetted.

Even so, your counsel is duly noted, and extra care is being given to grammatical errors.

hadji

 

[BigDave]

Has the Spokane Public Facilities District Board updated their firearms restriction wording?

Weapons and Concealed Handguns
http://www.spokanecenter.com/rules.php
In accordance with provisions of Municipal Code 10.10.050, it is the policy of the Spokane Convention Center that handguns and other weapons are strictly prohibited in Spokane Convention Center. Individuals who fail to comply with this prohibition or otherwise violate penal laws with respect to carrying a handgun or other weapon are subject to immediate arrest and prosecution. This prohibition applies to all persons including concealed handgun Licensees, with the exception of licensed law enforcement officers.

 

[Jeff Hayes]

Has the Spokane Public Facilities District Board updated their firearms restriction wording?

Weapons and Concealed Handguns
http://www.spokanecenter.com/rules.php
In accordance with provisions of Municipal Code 10.10.050, it is the policy of the Spokane Convention Center that handguns and other weapons are strictly prohibited in Spokane Convention Center. Individuals who fail to comply with this prohibition or otherwise violate penal laws with respect to carrying a handgun or other weapon are subject to immediate arrest and prosecution. This prohibition applies to all persons including concealed handgun Licensees, with the exception of licensed law enforcement officers.

Dave

That is what we have been working on.

I am waiting to hear back from them, I addressed this at the SPFD BoD meeting on the 13th of March. I am expecting to hear from the BoD late this week or early next week.

From the 3/27/2012 BoD meeting minutes;

"Mr. Twohig asked the Board how they would like to proceed with the legal memo about weapons in District facilities and it was the Board consensus to mail, with cover letter, next month."

Here is a link to the BoD meeting minutes for any that are interested http://www.spokanepfd.org/agenda.php

I was not arrested, don't think I will be. I believe in light of Chan v Seattle the City of Spokane will change the law.

I chatted with a Spokane City Cop and he said he did not think they could or would arrest me for carrying CC or OC at the convention center but that was his opinion he was obviously not speaking for the department.

We all need to remember that the SPFD BoD can not change the SMC, only the Spokane City Council can change the SMC (law).

OK grammar Nazis flame away, ROTFLMAO.

 

[BigDave]

Orphan I was just wondering if this was their answer to tighten up their wording in their rules and of course they do not have the authority to enforce and actually I feel their wording has no weight of law just wishful thinking on their part.

 

[Jeff Hayes]

Orphan I was just wondering if this was their answer to tighten up their wording in their rules and of course they do not have the authority to enforce and actually I feel their wording has no weight of law just wishful thinking on their part.

Dave this has been in place since January it is not their reply. I will post their reply as soon as I get it. I 100% agree their wording has no weight of law since 290 says any ;aw is preempted and repealed as soon as the ink dried on the law.

 

[Jeff Hayes]

I have the SPDD response

Witherspoon ● Kelley

Memo

To: Kevin Twohig, Chief Executive Officer, Spokane Public Facilities District
From: Stanley M. Schwartz, District General Counsel
Date: March 23, 2012
Re: Possession of Concealed Weapons in Public Facilities

I. INTRODUCTION
At the March 13, 2012 Board meeting, an individual made a statement and presented information concerning the right to carry concealed weapons in public assembly facilities. It was alleged that the District did not have a right to prevent individuals from carrying concealed weapons in its public facilities. Reference was made to RCW 9.41.290 and .300, two statutes that preempt local firearms regulation.

II. ANALYSIS
It is correct that the Legislature has reserved to itself the right to regulate firearms, including possession. While RCW 9.41.300 allows a city to prohibit the possession of guns in public facilities, there is an exemption for those persons who are licensed to carry concealed weapons. However, three Washington cases have addressed firearm possession in public facilities. The are: (1) Cherry v. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, 116 Wn.2d 794 (1991), (2) Pacific Northwest Shooting Park Association v. City of Sequim, 158 Wn.2d 342 (2006), and recently Chan v. City of Seattle, 164 Wash. App. 549 (2011).

The above cases recognize that municipalities operate in either a governmental or proprietary capacity. With reference to Cherry, the Chan court recognized that "when a municipality acts in a capacity that is comparable to that of a private party, the preemption clause does not apply." Id. at 564. Thus, when a municipality acts as a proprietor of a business enterprise for the private advantage of the municipality, it may exercise powers in much the same way as a private individual or corporation. The court wrote:
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.
Id. at 564.

Use of District Facilities is commonly through a license agreement. The license agreement is a contract between the District and a private party to exclusively use and occupy facilities pursuant to agreed terms and conditions. In the matter presented to the Board, the Ron Paul License Agreement required conformance with the District policies which include the prohibition on concealed weapons.

As was recognized in Chan, when the District enters into a business relationship for a proprietary or financial purpose the conditions contained in the License Agreement are not laws or regulations which would be subject to preemption by state law. In other words, just like a private party, when the District rents or authorizes use of its private facilities, the District and the event presenters are regulating use of facilities by agreement not through legislation (e.g., ordinance).

Given the above case law, and the use of the District Facilities through a License Agreement, the State preemption statute does not apply.

 

[DCKilla]

So, basicly, you can't rent Spokane's public property without agreeing to ban firearms. Is that correct?

 

[hadji]

Oh! Oh!
(laughing uncontrollably)
Oh, my sides hurt.

(settling down)
Oh, my.
(wiping tears from my eyes)


This could not have been better if I had written it myself!

We really should send a thank you note to Stan.

ok Orphan.
Now we have what we need.

Too bad it does not technically apply to an attorney's opinion,
but if this were a district court's decision,
it would have qualified as an 'Abuse of Discretion'.

(sigh)
This will be fun.

hadji

 

[BigDave]

Not really a surprising response and another fine example of poke and pick what parts to acknowledge in the Chan v Seattle case.
One must really wonder where or how they obtained a legal degree from to twist and turn the law.

 

[Jeff Hayes]

Oh! Oh!
(laughing uncontrollably)
Oh, my sides hurt.

(settling down)
Oh, my.
(wiping tears from my eyes)


This could not have been better if I had written it myself!

We really should send a thank you note to Stan.

ok Orphan.
Now we have what we need.

Too bad it does not technically apply to an attorney's opinion,
but if this were a district court's decision,
it would have qualified as an 'Abuse of Discretion'.

(sigh)
This will be fun.

hadji

I had a similar reaction followed by how the heck did he get there.

I fully understand every thing Stan wrote, its just that it does not apply.

Agreed this will be fun.

 

[Jeff Hayes]

Not really a surprising response and another fine example of poke and pick what parts to acknowledge in the Chan v Seattle case.
One must really wonder where or how they obtained a legal degree from to twist and turn the law.

I am not surprised but I am at the same time. He is a lawyer you cant expect anything different its all they know.

 

[BigDave]

I had a similar reaction followed by how the heck did he get there.

I fully understand every thing Stan wrote, its just that it does not apply.

Agreed this will be fun.

Orphan, he picked his information from the City of Seattle's response, not what the Judge ruled on. He did not read to this point, apparently!

VII

In sum, we hold that RCW 9.41.290 preempts the Firearms Rule. Except as

21

No. 65123-4-I/22

expressly authorized by the legislature, municipalities are prohibited from regulating the

possession of firearms at city-owned park facilities open to the public. Whether to

amend RCW 9.41.300 to prohibit possession of firearms at city-owned parks and park

facilities frequented by children and youth is a question for the legislature to decide.

We affirm.

WE CONCUR:

22

 

[Thor80]

Witherspoon ● Kelley

Memo

To: Kevin Twohig, Chief Executive Officer, Spokane Public Facilities District
From: Stanley M. Schwartz, District General Counsel
Date: March 23, 2012
Re: Possession of Concealed Weapons in Public Facilities

Use of District Facilities is commonly through a license agreement. The license agreement is a contract between the District and a private party to exclusively use and occupy facilities pursuant to agreed terms and conditions. In the matter presented to the Board, the Ron Paul License Agreement required conformance with the District policies which include the prohibition on concealed weapons.

As was recognized in Chan, when the District enters into a business relationship for a proprietary or financial purpose the conditions contained in the License Agreement are not laws or regulations which would be subject to preemption by state law. In other words, just like a private party, when the District rents or authorizes use of its private facilities, the District and the event presenters are regulating use of facilities by agreement not through legislation (e.g., ordinance).

Given the above case law, and the use of the District Facilities through a License Agreement, the State preemption statute does not apply.

Here is where we need to get the City Council to "fix" their ordinance! When Orphan gets back into town I will prepare words with him and join in a City Council meeting to fight this. I can agree to a certain point that the PFD may opt to put a "clause" in their contracts for folks to decline lawfully armed citizens in their portion of said facility, as a PUBLIC district though they should/can not refuse to "rent" to people that would opt to let legally armed folks into their portion of the facility. Jeff and I were asked to leave the BUILDING! We only made it into Ron Pauls area for a few seconds. At the point we left the conference area we were then in a "common egress/ingress" area of the building which (IANAL) I would not think falls under the "private" contract of a PUBLIC building that may have multiple "renters"....... Therefore the exemption granted us by the state via RCW 9.41.300 (2)(b)(i) is 100% valid! No where in that RCW does it give any leniency to restrict possession of a firearm from a valid exempted party! I guess this will be a good case for me to get my feet wet with Orphan!

-Thor

 

[hadji]

Thor:

Your analysis and comments are correct, of course.

A draft of an ordincance to change the SMC is already in process.
I would very much like your opinion on certain aspects of it.

Thor, fetch, Orphan:
You have, or will have later today, PM's.

hadji

 

[BigDave]

Here is where we need to get the City Council to "fix" their ordinance! When Orphan gets back into town I will prepare words with him and join in a City Council meeting to fight this.

I can agree to a certain point that the PFD may opt to put a "clause" in their contracts for folks to decline lawfully armed citizens in their portion of said facility, as a PUBLIC district though they should/can not refuse to "rent" to people that would opt to let legally armed folks into their portion of the facility.

Jeff and I were asked to leave the BUILDING! We only made it into Ron Pauls area for a few seconds. At the point we left the conference area we were then in a "common egress/ingress" area of the building which (IANAL) I would not think falls under the "private" contract of a PUBLIC building that may have multiple "renters"....... Therefore the exemption granted us by the state via RCW 9.41.300 (2)(b)(i) is 100% valid! No where in that RCW does it give any leniency to restrict possession of a firearm from a valid exempted party! I guess this will be a good case for me to get my feet wet with Orphan!
-Thor

I disagree with the concept of any part of the City being allowed to require or place a clause in any contract wording promoting banning of firearms in a lease agreements. Washington State Constitution Art. 1 SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

 

[hadji]

The AG Opinion (AGO 2008 No. 8) addresses the concept of "rules" attempting to supercede preemption.
Not allowed. No exceptions.

 

[Jeff Hayes]

The AG Opinion (AGO 2008 No. 8) addresses the concept of "rules" attempting to supercede preemption.
Not allowed. No exceptions.

Bingo, we have a winner.

 

[Thor80]

I disagree with the concept of any part of the City being allowed to require or place a clause in any contract wording promoting banning of firearms in a lease agreements. Washington State Constitution Art. 1 SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

After some thought and discussion I do believe I've changed my view on this a bit. I do not believe that the PFD should be able to ban legally carried firearms in ANY portion of their facility to the PUBLIC.

-Thor

 

[DCKilla]

The AG Opinion (AGO 2008 No. 8) addresses the concept of "rules" attempting to supercede preemption.
Not allowed. No exceptions.

Are you saying that the contract should be cleared of any requirement to ban concealled firearms because it circumvents preemption? The organization looking to rent part of the facility must come up with a ban on their own if they so choose. Is that what we're looking for as far as change?