Seahawks fans will be searched with handheld metal detector

[Thor80]

So your saying it based on case law?

If my understanding is correct then yes..... I could stand to be corrected if I'm wrong though, I am not an expert.....

-Thor

 

[hermannr]

Pacific Northwest Shooting Park Association v. City of Sequim, 158 Wn. 2d. 342, Oct. 2006



This case screwed the pooch on that one....... If the facility was open to the public then this wouldn't apply but since the games are not open to the public the "lessee" can make rules just like private property owners.... If the stadium/arena was open to the public for an even like most city/municipality buildings then RCW 9.41.290 and 300 would apply.

Thor

Actually, it depend on the leese agreement, if it is specifically stated in the leese agreement (see the Squim law suit) they can restrict, if not they cannot. So, the question is, what does their leese say.

Just as a side note. I sent an email to the guild to tell them to shove it...it's public property, where is their justification. If the Seattle guild wins, we win.

 

[hermannr]

Pacific Northwest Shooting Park Association v. City of Sequim, 158 Wn. 2d. 342, Oct. 2006



This case screwed the pooch on that one....... If the facility was open to the public then this wouldn't apply but since the games are not open to the public the "lessee" can make rules just like private property owners.... If the stadium/arena was open to the public for an even like most city/municipality buildings then RCW 9.41.290 and 300 would apply.

Thor

Thor, it was not the leesee that restricted the carry, it was squim, the leesor. It was in the leese agreement that the leesee WOULD NOT...it was Squim dictating in the terms of the leese.

So the question is: Did the public municipal corporation that owns the stadium put that restriction in the leese? If it di, then OK, why have they not been doing this all along? If not, they do not have a legal leg to stand on.

I really hope the Seattle Police guild takes my idea and runs with it. They will have to argue it on RCW 9.41.300 and the leese agreement, but if they win, every licensed carrier wins.

The NFL has to be shown that they cannot override our state law.

 

[slapmonkay]

So the question is: Did the public municipal corporation that owns the stadium put that restriction in the leese? If it di, then OK, why have they not been doing this all along? If not, they do not have a legal leg to stand on.

From what I remember of the lease it does not restrict firearms specifically.

 

[BigDave]

Pacific Northwest Shooting Park Association v. City of Sequim, 158 Wn. 2d. 342, Oct. 2006

This case screwed the pooch on that one....... If the facility was open to the public then this wouldn't apply but since the games are not open to the public the "lessee" can make rules just like private property owners.... If the stadium/arena was open to the public for an even like most city/municipality buildings then RCW 9.41.290 and 300 would apply.

Thor

This ruling did not have to do with the rights of citizens to posses firearms but a claim of interference with a contractual relationship or business expectancy, do not mix up the two.
During the course of this ruling, the judge had asked if they wanted to rewrite their request and if they would have done so from the standing of a citizen being denied access then the result would have been different.

Pacific Northwest Shooting Park Association v. City of Sequim, 158 Wn. 2d. 342, Oct. 2006
¶ 21 The city responds that the plain language of the preemption clause limits its reach to enactment of laws and ordinances. It argues that the text of the clause should be read in the context in which it was enacted, reasoning that the purpose was to eliminate inconsistencies in criminal firearms regulations. The city further contends that the reference to laws and ordinances is limited to laws of application to the general public. Regarding RCW 9.41.300, the city merely observes that it did not place any restrictions on possession of firearms, but it does not indicate whether a restriction on sales would violate the statute.​

This ruling does not support their position to deny citizens the ability to carry firearms in these venues.

 

[Thor80]

This ruling did not have to do with the rights of citizens to posses firearms but a claim of interference with a contractual relationship or business expectancy, do not mix up the two.
During the course of this ruling, the judge had asked if they wanted to rewrite their request and if they would have done so from the standing of a citizen being denied access then the result would have been different.

Pacific Northwest Shooting Park Association v. City of Sequim, 158 Wn. 2d. 342, Oct. 2006
¶ 21 The city responds that the plain language of the preemption clause limits its reach to enactment of laws and ordinances. It argues that the text of the clause should be read in the context in which it was enacted, reasoning that the purpose was to eliminate inconsistencies in criminal firearms regulations. The city further contends that the reference to laws and ordinances is limited to laws of application to the general public. Regarding RCW 9.41.300, the city merely observes that it did not place any restrictions on possession of firearms, but it does not indicate whether a restriction on sales would violate the statute.​

This ruling does not support their position to deny citizens the ability to carry firearms in these venues.

Correct, maybe my wording is incorrect I was trying to see the relevance of carrying in the venues after this ruling. In the language in the portion the ruling that I've bolded, does it not set the expectation that when these criteria are met the lessee and as Herman pointed out the lessor both are acting in capacity as Private Property Owners? Therefore are not held accountable under 9.41.290 and .300 and can restrict carry as they see fit? I'm not saying it's right, just trying to interpret it as this case has been mentioned a few times here when talking about stadiums/arenas/convention centers etc....

¶31 A municipality acts in a proprietary capacity when it "acts as the proprietor of a business enterprise for the private advantage of the [municipality]" and it may "exercise its business powers in much the same way as a private individual or corporation." Hite v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 2 of Grant County, 112 Wn.2d 456, 459, 772 P.2d 481 (1989); Branson v. Port of Seattle, 152 Wn.2d 862, 870, 101 P.3d 67 (2004). When acting in a proprietary capacity, a city may enter into any contract "'which is necessary to render the system efficient and beneficial to the public.'" Hite, 112 Wn.2d at 460 (quoting Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 17 Wn. App. 861, 864, 565 P.2d 1221 (1977)); see also Stover v. Winston Bros. Co., 185 Wash. 416, 422, 55 P.2d 821 (1936). By issuing a temporary use permit, the city was leasing its property to PNSPA and acting in its private capacity as a property owner.

Again I'm new at this legalese and I wasn't saying that PNWSPA vs. Sequim was directly related to restricting carry at these facilities just trying to tie together the relevance of the ruling and acting as private property that restricts carry......

-Thor

Edit: But now I think I know where you were going, a citizen being denied access due to carry could be a whole new case if they are denied access to a public facility that is leased out? And the only way to get that case would be to be denied access and filing suit?

 

[TheGunMan]

Ditto

DITTO:exclaim:

DITTO:exclaim:

You get a better view on TV anyway.

 

[BigDave]

Correct, maybe my wording is incorrect I was trying to see the relevance of carrying in the venues after this ruling. In the language in the portion the ruling that I've bolded, does it not set the expectation that when these criteria are met the lessee and as Herman pointed out the lessor both are acting in capacity as Private Property Owners? Therefore are not held accountable under 9.41.290 and .300 and can restrict carry as they see fit? I'm not saying it's right, just trying to interpret it as this case has been mentioned a few times here when talking about stadiums/arenas/convention centers etc....

¶31 A municipality acts in a proprietary capacity when it "acts as the proprietor of a business enterprise for the private advantage of the [municipality]" and it may "exercise its business powers in much the same way as a private individual or corporation." Hite v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 2 of Grant County, 112 Wn.2d 456, 459, 772 P.2d 481 (1989); Branson v. Port of Seattle, 152 Wn.2d 862, 870, 101 P.3d 67 (2004). When acting in a proprietary capacity, a city may enter into any contract "'which is necessary to render the system efficient and beneficial to the public.'" Hite, 112 Wn.2d at 460 (quoting Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 17 Wn. App. 861, 864, 565 P.2d 1221 (1977)); see also Stover v. Winston Bros. Co., 185 Wash. 416, 422, 55 P.2d 821 (1936). By issuing a temporary use permit, the city was leasing its property to PNSPA and acting in its private capacity as a property owner.

Again I'm new at this legalese and I wasn't saying that PNWSPA vs. Sequim was directly related to restricting carry at these facilities just trying to tie together the relevance of the ruling and acting as private property that restricts carry......

-Thor

Edit: But now I think I know where you were going, a citizen being denied access due to carry could be a whole new case if they are denied access to a public facility that is leased out? And the only way to get that case would be to be denied access and filing suit?

I think you have it as well, just to add what was the court asked to review?
A. Did the city tortiously interfere?
B. Did the city violate RCW 9.41.290 or .300?

This is what their decision was based on though we do read the dissent by Justice Sanders which I wish the Justices would have aligned with.

For the Stadium or the issue in Spokane, both take it out of context.

 

[TheDavid]

Not to make a case for the LEO'S but

"RCW 9A.76.023
Disarming a law enforcement or corrections officer.

(1) A person is guilty of disarming a law enforcement officer if with intent to interfere with the performance of the officer's duties the person knowingly removes a firearm or weapon from the person of a law enforcement officer or corrections officer or deprives a law enforcement officer or corrections officer of the use of a firearm or weapon, when the officer is acting within the scope of the officer's duties, does not consent to the removal, and the person has reasonable cause to know or knows that the individual is a law enforcement or corrections officer.

(2)(a) Except as provided in (b) of this subsection, disarming a law enforcement or corrections officer is a class C felony.

(b) Disarming a law enforcement or corrections officer is a class B felony if the firearm involved is discharged when the person removes the firearm.


[2003 c 53 § 82; 1998 c 252 § 1.]"

So seance most LEO'S are required to carry then we can assume that they are "acting within the scope of the officer's duties".

Just putting that out there, though it dose not help us at all...

 

[Difdi]

Because they think they serve a "special role" in our society and are privileged as the kings servants.

Garbage collection is both more necessary to society than law enforcement (citizens can defend themselves against a robber but not a plague) as well as several times more dangerous in both injury rates and death rates on the job. But for some reason, nobody seems to think garbage collectors should be above the law the way police expect to be.

Garbage collectors don't swear oaths to uphold the law, either...

 

[jfslicer]

So seance most LEO'S are required to carry then we can assume that they are "acting within the scope of the officer's duties".

Just putting that out there, though it dose not help us at all...

Does disarming an off duty officer count as disarming a law enforcement officer? He is acting in that role at the time?

 

[rapgood]

The SPF keeps citing Cherry

Which "Cherry?" "Cherry v. Mun. of Metro. Seattle?"

 

[Jeff Hayes]

Which "Cherry?" "Cherry v. Mun. of Metro. Seattle?"

Yes Cherry v Seattle, Cherry only effects City Employees not the general public if I am reading it correctly.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Garbage collection is both more necessary to society than law enforcement (citizens can defend themselves against a robber but not a plague) as well as several times more dangerous in both injury rates and death rates on the job. But for some reason, nobody seems to think garbage collectors should be above the law the way police expect to be.

Garbage collectors don't swear oaths to uphold the law, either...

+1