No loaded firearms at ANY gun show, unless you are LEO or security(working for the show)
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/sh...ith-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