• 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.

OC no longer welcome at Pike Place Market

amlevin

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
rapgood said:
PNSPA v. Sequim notwithstanding, a provision in a contract between Seattle (or any other municipality or similar entity in Washington) and a private entity cannot, as I see it, skirt state preemption in an effort to disallow possession and/or display of a firearm in publicly owned premises. As such, paragraph 7.2 in the Museum contract, and paragraph 2.2 of the Aquarium contract are void as a matter of law.

Re-read the provisions of the contracts. They are requirements by the City for the lessees to disallow lawful carry. They are CITY requirements and, as such, are violative of RCW 9.41.290. As I read it, PNSPA is a very narrow holding limited to sales preclusion.
Click to expand...

As always, opinions are just opinions until tested in Court. Who would like to volunteer to be a test case?
 
J

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
rapgood said:
PNSPA v. Sequim notwithstanding, a provision in a contract between Seattle (or any other municipality or similar entity in Washington) and a private entity cannot, as I see it, skirt state preemption in an effort to disallow possession and/or display of a firearm in publicly owned premises. As such, paragraph 7.2 in the Museum contract, and paragraph 2.2 of the Aquarium contract are void as a matter of law.

Re-read the provisions of the contracts. They are requirements by the City for the lessees to disallow lawful carry. They are CITY requirements and, as such, are violative of RCW 9.41.290. As I read it, PNSPA is a very narrow holding limited to sales preclusion.
Click to expand...


I agree.
Per PNSPA v Sequim The rules The City of Sequim imposed on PNSPA did not violate RCW 9.412.290 because they were not "laws or regulations of application to the general public". Since paragraph 7.2 of the Museum contract and 2.2 of the Aquarium contract apply to the general public they are clearly in violation of RCW 9.41.290 and 300.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top