That is the solution in Virginia. The venue (actual lessee) can make their own decisions. Neither the municipality nor the management agent may circumvent preemption.
-
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.
-
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 Carry in the news KHQ interview with Jeff Hayes
- Thread starter DEROS72
- Start date
That is the solution in Virginia. The venue (actual lessee) can make their own decisions. Neither the municipality nor the management agent may circumvent preemption.
Jeff Hayes
Regular Member
Grapeshot There is no lease, no rent, only a license to use the facility for a period of time for an event. Because it is a license to use the facility the user has no property rights and can make no rules.
DCkilla We are not arguing if the SPFD can have rules in their contract for the licensees I believe they can do that, we are arguing that it does not apply to someone that just walks in off the street assuming it is open to the public at the time. Read AGO 2008 No.8 to see what I am talking about its pretty clear. I have contacted SAF and we will proceed to get this fixed. Please expect this issue to take time and money to get done, nothing like this moves very fast.
Lammo
Regular Member
Lammo
Regular Member
Stan says "required conformance with the District policies which include the prohibition on concealed weapons" which is fine except under pre-emption the District is not allowed to have any such policies!!!!!!! Sometimes this stuff makes my head hurt (and I paid a lot of money to go to law school!).
Last edited:
Jeff Hayes
Regular Member
Hey, wait a minute, I resemble that remark, or something.
Yes you do, but you are one of the good guys,
)))))Ok, read Witherspoon and Kelley's letter and I read the cases they cited. Twice, very carefully. I'm confused.
So are these guys saying that these three cases support their right to ban guns for events in city own building? Did I misread the cases?
As far as I can tell, the cases and opinions shoot their ban all to shreds. Please help this non-lawyer understand.
So are these guys saying that these three cases support their right to ban guns for events in city own building? Did I misread the cases?
As far as I can tell, the cases and opinions shoot their ban all to shreds. Please help this non-lawyer understand.
Ok, read Witherspoon and Kelley's letter and I read the cases they cited. Twice, very carefully. I'm confused.
So are these guys saying that these three cases support their right to ban guns for events in city own building?
Yes.
No.
Correct.
You already do.
hadji
Last edited:
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Ok, read Witherspoon and Kelley's letter and I read the cases they cited. Twice, very carefully. I'm confused.
So are these guys saying that these three cases support their right to ban guns for events in city own building? Did I misread the cases?
As far as I can tell, the cases and opinions shoot their ban all to shreds. Please help this non-lawyer understand.
I went to Ferndale city Hall big sign says no firearms and then RCW 9.41.300 listed as support for that sign. I walked in anyway and did my business. Sometimes I think they purposefully try to throw something out there just to sound official and hope no one calls them on it.
Jeff Hayes
Regular Member
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Just a bump to keep this higher in our State forum.
Jeff Hayes
Regular Member
This issue is still being worked on. There are two issues to deal with, we are working on issue 1, as soon as that is resolved we will work on issue 2. Then there is the fact that I have been out of town for more than 2 weeks. Very capable others have been working on issue 1 while I was gone, we will continue to work as a team until we resolve both issues.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Many of us appreciate what you are doing Jeff , you guys keep up the good work.
I hope my bump didn't come across as an impatient expectation. I understand you guys have lives and how gubments drag their feet.
Status Report
Well.
That certainly took longer than we had hoped.
But here we are.
Ordinance No. C35001 is before the Spokane City Council,
with a first reading last night.
The text of it is copied in below.
Or, if you care to look it up in context, it can be found on page 228 of this document:
http://www.spokanecity.org/services/documents/file/ViewAttachment.aspx?FILUP_ID=14394
This is a good ordinance.
It modifies SMC 10.10.050, adding the exemption of RCW 9.41.300.
Do not worry about Section E.
It is of no concern to us.
This ordinance comes up for a vote on Monday, July 8, 2013.
I intend to address the Council at that meeting,
advocating passage of this ordinance.
This ordinance achieves only one thing:
it brings the SMC in compliance with state law.
This is not a ‘pro-gun’ or an ‘anti-gun’ ordinance.
It is more of a 'house-keeping' ordinance.
That is all we want.
It does not, and should not, address Jeff and Thor being denied access to PFD property.
That comes later.
This change to SMC 10.10.050 completes step one of a two-step process.
Jeff: thank you for your perseverance in this matter, sir.
It is due to your commitment to allow the process to work that we are successful thus far.
hadji
An ordinance relating to firearms; amending SMC sections 10.10.050 and
10.11.052.
The City of Spokane does ordain:
Section 1. That SMC section 10.10.050 is amended to read as follows:
10.10.050 Municipal Public Assembly Facilities
A. No person shall bring into or have in their possession while present at any City
public assembly facility any cans, bottles, alcoholic beverages, controlled
substances, ((guns)) firearms, knives or other such devices which are weapons
or apparently capable of use as weapons.
B. The public assembly facilities are the INB Performing Arts Center, the
Convention Center, Spokane Veterans Memorial Arena, and Joe Albi Stadium.
C. This shall not prohibit legitimate operations of licensed concessionaires or other
persons authorized by the Spokane Public Facilities District, Chief Executive
Officer or designee, or the director of parks and recreation or designee for Joe
Albi Stadium.
D. The restriction set forth above in subsection (A) shall not apply to:
1. 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
2. Any showing, demonstration, or lecture involving the exhibition of firearms.
E. Nothing in this section shall prohibit the owner or operator of a public assembly
facility from adopting rules or policies regulating the possession of firearms
pursuant to and consistent with state law.
Section 2. That SMC section 10.11.052 is amended to read as follows:
10.11.052 Firearms and Dangerous Weapons
The following Revised Code of Washington (RCW) sections, including all future
amendments, additions, or deletions, are hereby adopted by reference and shall be
given full force and effect as if set forth in full.
RCW
9.41.010 Terms Defined
9.41.050 Carrying firearms
9.41.060 Exceptions to restrictions on carrying firearms
9.41.070 Concealed pistol license – Application – Fee – Renewal
9.41.098 Forfeiture of firearms – Disposition – Confiscation
9.41.140 Alteration of identifying marks – Exceptions
9.41.230 Aiming or discharging firearms, dangerous weapons
9.41.240 Possession of pistol by person from eighteen to twenty-one
9.41.250 Dangerous weapons – Penalty – Exemption for law enforcement officers
9.41.260 Dangerous exhibitions
9.41.270 Weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm – Unlawful carrying
or handling – Penalty – Exceptions
9.41.280 Possessing dangerous weapons on school facilities – Penalty – Exceptions
9.41.300 Weapons prohibited in certain places – Local laws and ordinances –
Exceptions – Penalty
9.41.800 Surrender of weapons or licenses – Prohibition on future possession or
licensing
9.41.810 Penalty
All other sections of RCW 9.41 are expressly excluded from SMC 10.11.052 and hereby deleted.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON __________________________, 2013.
______________________________
Council President
Attest: Approved as to form:
__________________________ ______________________________
City Clerk Assistant City Attorney
_______________________ _______________________________
Mayor Date
_________________________ _____
Effective Date
Well.
That certainly took longer than we had hoped.
But here we are.
Ordinance No. C35001 is before the Spokane City Council,
with a first reading last night.
The text of it is copied in below.
Or, if you care to look it up in context, it can be found on page 228 of this document:
http://www.spokanecity.org/services/documents/file/ViewAttachment.aspx?FILUP_ID=14394
This is a good ordinance.
It modifies SMC 10.10.050, adding the exemption of RCW 9.41.300.
Do not worry about Section E.
It is of no concern to us.
This ordinance comes up for a vote on Monday, July 8, 2013.
I intend to address the Council at that meeting,
advocating passage of this ordinance.
This ordinance achieves only one thing:
it brings the SMC in compliance with state law.
This is not a ‘pro-gun’ or an ‘anti-gun’ ordinance.
It is more of a 'house-keeping' ordinance.
That is all we want.
It does not, and should not, address Jeff and Thor being denied access to PFD property.
That comes later.
This change to SMC 10.10.050 completes step one of a two-step process.
Jeff: thank you for your perseverance in this matter, sir.
It is due to your commitment to allow the process to work that we are successful thus far.
hadji
Ordinance No. C35001
An ordinance relating to firearms; amending SMC sections 10.10.050 and
10.11.052.
The City of Spokane does ordain:
Section 1. That SMC section 10.10.050 is amended to read as follows:
10.10.050 Municipal Public Assembly Facilities
A. No person shall bring into or have in their possession while present at any City
public assembly facility any cans, bottles, alcoholic beverages, controlled
substances, ((guns)) firearms, knives or other such devices which are weapons
or apparently capable of use as weapons.
B. The public assembly facilities are the INB Performing Arts Center, the
Convention Center, Spokane Veterans Memorial Arena, and Joe Albi Stadium.
C. This shall not prohibit legitimate operations of licensed concessionaires or other
persons authorized by the Spokane Public Facilities District, Chief Executive
Officer or designee, or the director of parks and recreation or designee for Joe
Albi Stadium.
D. The restriction set forth above in subsection (A) shall not apply to:
1. 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
2. Any showing, demonstration, or lecture involving the exhibition of firearms.
E. Nothing in this section shall prohibit the owner or operator of a public assembly
facility from adopting rules or policies regulating the possession of firearms
pursuant to and consistent with state law.
Section 2. That SMC section 10.11.052 is amended to read as follows:
10.11.052 Firearms and Dangerous Weapons
The following Revised Code of Washington (RCW) sections, including all future
amendments, additions, or deletions, are hereby adopted by reference and shall be
given full force and effect as if set forth in full.
RCW
9.41.010 Terms Defined
9.41.050 Carrying firearms
9.41.060 Exceptions to restrictions on carrying firearms
9.41.070 Concealed pistol license – Application – Fee – Renewal
9.41.098 Forfeiture of firearms – Disposition – Confiscation
9.41.140 Alteration of identifying marks – Exceptions
9.41.230 Aiming or discharging firearms, dangerous weapons
9.41.240 Possession of pistol by person from eighteen to twenty-one
9.41.250 Dangerous weapons – Penalty – Exemption for law enforcement officers
9.41.260 Dangerous exhibitions
9.41.270 Weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm – Unlawful carrying
or handling – Penalty – Exceptions
9.41.280 Possessing dangerous weapons on school facilities – Penalty – Exceptions
9.41.300 Weapons prohibited in certain places – Local laws and ordinances –
Exceptions – Penalty
9.41.800 Surrender of weapons or licenses – Prohibition on future possession or
licensing
9.41.810 Penalty
All other sections of RCW 9.41 are expressly excluded from SMC 10.11.052 and hereby deleted.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON __________________________, 2013.
______________________________
Council President
Attest: Approved as to form:
__________________________ ______________________________
City Clerk Assistant City Attorney
_______________________ _______________________________
Mayor Date
_________________________ _____
Effective Date
BigDave
Opt-Out Members
When ever I see someone say don't worry about something alarm bells start ringing.
what do you think they mean by owner operator of a public assembly?
Some counties have venues ran by a board our a subsidiary and claim or try to that they are a private entity and attempt to restrict possession in a round about way.
I would suggest a definition of who they are talking about.
I am aware that they are adopting preemption but often we deal with those who feel they are crafty and we end up down that road again.
E. Nothing in this section shall prohibit the owner or operator of a public assembly
facility from adopting rules or policies regulating the possession of firearms
pursuant to and consistent with state law.
what do you think they mean by owner operator of a public assembly?
Some counties have venues ran by a board our a subsidiary and claim or try to that they are a private entity and attempt to restrict possession in a round about way.
I would suggest a definition of who they are talking about.
I am aware that they are adopting preemption but often we deal with those who feel they are crafty and we end up down that road again.
E. Nothing in this section shall prohibit the owner or operator of a public assembly
facility from adopting rules or policies regulating the possession of firearms
pursuant to and consistent with state law.
Last edited:
Dave:
Your question is a good one.
I had my doubts, and had several rounds of correspondence with the city attorney, who suggested that wording.
At first, it appeared the wording provided sort of an exemption for the PFD.
But after much discussion, and a more careful reading, the important part became clear, which is:
"from adopting rules or policies regulating the possession of firearms
pursuant to and consistent with state law. "
It is merely reiterating that those who own, or operate, PFD facilities must set policies in accordance with state law.
That is a good thing.
We want the owners, and the operators, to follow state law.
They will not, and we will engage in a court action to compel compliance.
They will likely appeal, and we will win 'with prejudice' and that will be the end of it.
hadji
Your question is a good one.
I had my doubts, and had several rounds of correspondence with the city attorney, who suggested that wording.
At first, it appeared the wording provided sort of an exemption for the PFD.
But after much discussion, and a more careful reading, the important part became clear, which is:
"from adopting rules or policies regulating the possession of firearms
pursuant to and consistent with state law. "
It is merely reiterating that those who own, or operate, PFD facilities must set policies in accordance with state law.
That is a good thing.
We want the owners, and the operators, to follow state law.
They will not, and we will engage in a court action to compel compliance.
They will likely appeal, and we will win 'with prejudice' and that will be the end of it.
hadji
BigDave
Opt-Out Members
That is the point I was trying to get across, there isa very good chance they will try and say the PDF is a private entity and restricting firearms (in their reasoning) is in their purview.
I hope not but my past experience with a certain city attorney he recommended not coming into compliance because other countries have adopted such laws! I was able to get them corrected but still in awe of the stupidity...
I hope not but my past experience with a certain city attorney he recommended not coming into compliance because other countries have adopted such laws! I was able to get them corrected but still in awe of the stupidity...
You are correct.
The city council has acknowledged that the PFD has their own board of directors, who set policy for the PFD.
It is not up to the city council to send a message to the PFD demanding compliance.
And Stan Schwartz, the attorney for the PFD, has said as much,
citing PNSPA as grounds, that the PFD are acting in their proprietary capacity,
and therefore can set any rule they want.
You and I know that case fails rather quickly, but we will have to let it run its course.
The city council has, or rather is in the process of, doing their job.
We will let the courts do theirs.
hadji
The city council has acknowledged that the PFD has their own board of directors, who set policy for the PFD.
It is not up to the city council to send a message to the PFD demanding compliance.
And Stan Schwartz, the attorney for the PFD, has said as much,
citing PNSPA as grounds, that the PFD are acting in their proprietary capacity,
and therefore can set any rule they want.
You and I know that case fails rather quickly, but we will have to let it run its course.
The city council has, or rather is in the process of, doing their job.
We will let the courts do theirs.
hadji
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Glad to see you keeping up the fight!
Jeff Hayes
Regular Member
Hadji deserves most of the credit he worked very hard on this, Fetch also has been involved and met with several city employees on several occasions. The truth is we all kinda kept each other moving forward. This is just like a college degree its more about stamina and endurance than academic skills.