CCW - WA State - Safeco & Quest Fields


PDA






jddssc121
April 22, 2008, 10:31 AM
So from reading RCW you can CCW (with license of course:)) in a govt owned "stadium"

I'm pretty sure Quest and Safeco are privately owned and leased to the city? or am i wrong..?

anyhow does anyone have experience w/ CCW in either of these places? I'm not so interested in "i did it and nobody noticed"....i'm more interested in hearing about interactions with Staff/Security/KC Sheriff

If you enjoyed reading about "CCW - WA State - Safeco & Quest Fields" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
NavyLCDR
April 22, 2008, 02:12 PM
Safeco field is no weapons allowed:
http://seattle.mariners.mlb.com/sea/ballpark/sea_ballpark_guide.jsp

Look down in the P's.
Prohibited Items
The Mariners do not allow laser pointers, noisemakers, fireworks, inflatable items or weapons in Safeco Field.

NavyLCDR
April 22, 2008, 02:16 PM
Quest field is also no weapons allowed. I could not cut and paste the paragraph for some reason.

http://www.qwestfield.com/venue/stadiumGuide.aspx

again under prohibited items.

xpun8
April 22, 2008, 02:23 PM
Those are "rules" and will only get you trespassed if they are violated, similar to the mall. If you are looking for a RCW mandated gun free zone, I don't believe either venue is or could be because of preemption.

Mainsail
April 22, 2008, 02:40 PM
To clarify, you cannot be trespassed unless you are asked to leave (for any reason) and you remain or return. You can’t be trespassed because of the sign.

testar77
April 22, 2008, 02:55 PM
Also IIRC in Wa there is a law about CCW in Large public gatherings. Not real specific on what it considers large though.

Toby

Mainsail
April 22, 2008, 03:22 PM
There is nothing in the law about public gatherings.

Washington defines a number of places you cannot carry:
• Any place where carrying firearms is prohibited by federal law
• Public or private elementary or secondary school premises, school-provided transportation, or areas/facilities while being used exclusively by public or private schools (CRW 9.41.280)
• On the site of an "outdoor music festival" (CRW 70.108.150)
• Restricted access areas of a jail, or of a law enforcement facility, or any place used for the confinement of a person (CRW 9.41.300)
• Areas in any building which are used in connection with court proceedings, including courtrooms, jury rooms, judge's chambers, offices, etc. (CRW 9.41.300)
• The restricted access areas of a public mental health facility certified by the department of social and health services for inpatient hospital care and state institutions for the care of the mentally ill, excluding those facilities solely for evaluation and treatment (CRW 9.41.300)
• Any portion of an establishment classified by the state liquor control board as off-limits to persons under twenty-one years of age (CRW 9.41.300)


(1) "Outdoor music festival" or "music festival" or "festival" means an assembly of persons gathered primarily for outdoor, live or recorded musical entertainment, where the predicted attendance is two thousand persons or more and where the duration of the program is five hours or longer: PROVIDED, That this definition shall not be applied to any regularly established permanent place of worship, stadium, athletic field, arena, auditorium, coliseum, or other similar permanently established places of assembly for assemblies which do not exceed by more than two hundred fifty people the maximum seating capacity of the structure where the assembly is held: PROVIDED, FURTHER, That this definition shall not apply to government sponsored fairs held on regularly established fairgrounds nor to assemblies required to be licensed under other laws or regulations of the state.

357WheelGun
April 22, 2008, 03:54 PM
You can’t be trespassed because of the sign.

Actually, properly visible signs on the property do constitute notification as far as the legal system is concerned. If you see the sign and knowingly carry, you have committed trespass.

Trespass simply requires a persistent presence after notification, it doesn't specify that the notification must be person to person. A "No Trespassing" sign is considered to be sufficient notification provided that it is appropriately visible.

NavyLCDR
April 22, 2008, 05:35 PM
I don't know if the stadiums are posted or not, I would bet that they are. So do the Mariners and Seahawks and the stadiums go on the Do Not Do Business Here list?

Mainsail
April 22, 2008, 05:39 PM
Actually, properly visible signs on the property do constitute notification as far as the legal system is concerned. If you see the sign and knowingly carry, you have committed trespass.

Citation please.

rainbowbob
April 22, 2008, 05:54 PM
Interested in this also as I have some tickets for a couple of Mariners games this year. It sounds like the worst that could happen would be removal from the stadium - not loss of CPL. Is that correct?

357WheelGun
April 22, 2008, 06:48 PM
Mainsail, RCW 9A.52.10, subsection 3, see bolded portion:

(3) "Enters or remains unlawfully". A person "enters or remains unlawfully" in or upon premises when he is not then licensed, invited, or otherwise privileged to so enter or remain.

A license or privilege to enter or remain in a building which is only partly open to the public is not a license or privilege to enter or remain in that part of a building which is not open to the public. A person who enters or remains upon unimproved and apparently unused land, which is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders, does so with license and privilege unless notice against trespass is personally communicated to him by the owner of the land or some other authorized person, or unless notice is given by posting in a conspicuous manner. Land that is used for commercial aquaculture or for growing an agricultural crop or crops, other than timber, is not unimproved and apparently unused land if a crop or any other sign of cultivation is clearly visible or if notice is given by posting in a conspicuous manner. Similarly, a field fenced in any manner is not unimproved and apparently unused land. A license or privilege to enter or remain on improved and apparently used land that is open to the public at particular times, which is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a manner to exclude intruders, is not a license or privilege to enter or remain on the land at other times if notice of prohibited times of entry is posted in a conspicuous manner;

If there are signs conspicuously posted and you enter in violation of those signs, you are guilty of criminal trespass.

The list of defenses for Criminal Trespass are listed as follows:

RCW 9A.52.090
Criminal trespass — Defenses.

In any prosecution under RCW 9A.52.070 and 9A.52.080, it is a defense that:

(1) A building involved in an offense under RCW 9A.52.070 was abandoned; or

(2) The premises were at the time open to members of the public and the actor complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the premises; or

(3) The actor reasonably believed that the owner of the premises, or other person empowered to license access thereto, would have licensed him to enter or remain; or

(4) The actor was attempting to serve legal process which includes any document required or allowed to be served upon persons or property, by any statute, rule, ordinance, regulation, or court order, excluding delivery by the mails of the United States. This defense applies only if the actor did not enter into a private residence or other building not open to the public and the entry onto the premises was reasonable and necessary for service of the legal process.

The first defense establishes that criminal trespass in the first degree does not apply to abandoned structures, though it is not a defense against criminal trespass in the second degree.

The third defense obviously is irrelevant if you ignore posted signs as the signs would negate the reasonable belief that the owner of the premises would allow you to be there in violation of the signs.

The fourth defense applies only to people serving legal papers and thus does not apply here either.

That leaves the only defense remaining:

(2) The premises were at the time open to members of the public and the actor complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the premises

Note that this first requires that the premises be open to the public.

Posted signs would indicate that being unarmed is a condition of access to the premises. By willfully entering the premises in violation of this condition a person will have committed trespass. One may be willing to press the issue and hope that one is simply asked to leave, however the letter of the law is such that one would be open to prosecution.

That said, the charge would likely be Criminal Trespass in the Second Degree, which is a misdemeanor and not a felony and is not among the listed misdemeanors that would make one ineligible to hold a CPL. Even Criminal Trespass in the First Degree is still "only" a gross misdemeanor and should not affect one's CPL even if convicted.

I am not a lawyer, however. This does not constitute legal advice.

Mainsail
April 22, 2008, 07:35 PM
First, thank you for being able to back up what you say! It doesn’t happen much in this forum.

Ok, we’ll start with the first quote
A person who enters or remains upon unimproved and apparently unused land, which is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders, does so with license and privilege unless notice against trespass is personally communicated to him by the owner of the land or some other authorized person, or unless notice is given by posting in a conspicuous manner.

I fixed the bolded portion to make it self explanatory. That whole paragraph is about land, not businesses that welcome the public, (acknowledging that some businesses do not welcome the public onto their property).

As to the second quote
(2) The premises were at the time open to members of the public and the actor complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the premises

Posted signs would indicate that being unarmed is a condition of access to the premises, but are not necessarily a lawful condition of entry.

Posting a sign that bars the carry of firearms into a business, say Applebees, is not a ‘lawful condition’, but a business preference. There is no law that says you cannot carry into a restaurant, thus you are complying with all lawful conditions imposed. Now, there is a law that we cannot carry our firearms into the portion of Applebees that is off limits to persons under the age of 21 (the bar area). That area will be signed banning firearms and is a lawful condition of entry into that area.

Even if we accept your argument there is no way of ensuring that the sign will be seen by all customers upon entry, short of posting an employee to interrogate customers as they walk through the door. I openly carried my 1911 into Jareds Jewelery in Tacoma, only to be stopped by their armed guard. Despite the HUGE letters all over the door, I completely missed it! I was asked to leave.

No, not a lwayer either ;)

Old Dog
April 22, 2008, 07:42 PM
It sounds like the worst that could happen would be removal from the stadium - not loss of CPL. Is that correct?
Good luck with that. Criminal trespass happens to be one of the gross misdemeanors that will result in forfeiture of your CPL. If it's a weapons-related offense, do you really want to take your chances with the King County Prosector's Office? Oh, and by the way, they'll yank your CPL before you go to court and, even if you get off, want to guess how long it'll take to get your CPL back?

rainbowbob
April 22, 2008, 08:05 PM
Criminal Trespass in the First Degree is still "only" a gross misdemeanor and should not affect one's CPL even if convicted.

Posted signs would indicate that being unarmed is a condition of access to the premises, but are not necessarily a lawful condition of entry.

Criminal trespass happens to be one of the gross misdemeanors that will result in forfeiture of your CPL.


:confused: :confused: :confused:


I demand to speak to an attorney!

Old Dog
April 22, 2008, 08:30 PM
Rainbowbob saysI demand to speak to an attorney!

Let's ask the state:

RCW 9A.52.070
Criminal trespass in the first degree.

(1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the first degree if he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building.
(2) Criminal trespass in the first degree is a gross misdemeanor.

[from the DOL website]
Requirements: Concealed pistol license
What requirements must I meet to get a license?
You must meet all of the following requirements:

21 years of age or older at time of application.
United States citizen or have an alien firearms license issued by the Department of Licensing in Olympia. Our phone number is (360) 664-6616.
No pending trial, appeal, or sentencing on a charge that would prohibit you from having a license.
No outstanding warrants for any charge, from any court.
No court order or injunction against possessing a firearm.
No mental health conditions that would prohibit you from having a license.
No felony convictions.
No convictions for any of the following crimes committed by one family member against another on or after July 1, 1993:
Assault IV
Coercion
Stalking
Reckless Endangerment in the second degree
Criminal Trespass in the first degree
Violation of the provisions of a protection order or no-contact order restraining the person or excluding the person from the residence

As I asked before, do you really want to take your chances with the KC Prosecutor's Office?

Trust me, I've seen how quickly folks can get CPLs pulled -- even before going to court -- and for what many here would consider trivial offenses.

rainbowbob
April 22, 2008, 08:48 PM
I'm still not certain that being in a stadium with a ticket in hand and a pistol in my pocket would constitute criminal trespass in the first degree. That being said, I AM certain I do NOT want to tussle with the prosecutor with my CPL in the balance.

Mainsail
April 22, 2008, 09:03 PM
(1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the first degree if he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building.

That refers to a person's house or shed, or an office building not typically open to the public. Walking into the 7-11, sign or not, is not 'entering or remaining unlawfully' in a building.

To elaborate; an action isn’t unlawful unless there is a law the specifically illegalizes the action. Since there is no law against entering a building that is open to the public (Applebees or 7-11) your being there, regardless of your sidearm, is lawful, thus the text in the law you quoted is inapplicable. If, however, you are notified by someone who has authority over the building, like a manager or cashier, that they do not want you there for whatever reason, you are required to leave. If you remain, you are ‘unlawfully remaining’ in the building.
Since there is no law against firearms carry in a 7-11, the police cannot arrest you or even detain you for being there without regard for their signage. What they can do is trespass you, which is a written notification that you may never return. If you violate the trespass, you will be arrested for trespassing, not for carrying a firearm into the store.

MillCreek
April 22, 2008, 09:38 PM
I do the no-trespass orders for work, in which we bar people from coming onto our property. These are usually former patients or employees who have threatened us, assaulted staff or the like. I send them a notice in which I revoke their permission to enter our property as a patient, visitor, member of the public or business invitee. If they so show up, we call 911, I show the police a copy of the order and the evidence of service, and the police arrest the trespasser. As a private business, even one that is open to the public, a property owner can revoke permission to enter or remain upon the property.

Are the baseball and football stadiums private or government-owned public property?

Old Dog
April 22, 2008, 11:15 PM
Mainsail, the question's been asked and answered. According to Padula Associates, LLC, actual attorneys who specialize in gun rights issues, "It's illegal to carry a concealed firearm, even with a CPL, in a bar, on private property where posted or at most schools."

You said,
Quote:
(1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the first degree if he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building.

That refers to a person's house or shed, or an office building not typically open to the public. Walking into the 7-11, sign or not, is not 'entering or remaining unlawfully' in a building.
357Wheelgun noted the applicable statute in his post, and again, if the property is posted, you're in violation of the criminal trespass statutes.

While you'd probably be able to plea down if caught, do you really want to test the statute?

357WheelGun
April 23, 2008, 01:28 AM
Mainsail:

Posting a sign that bars the carry of firearms into a business, say Applebees, is not a ‘lawful condition’, but a business preference. There is no law that says you cannot carry into a restaurant, thus you are complying with all lawful conditions imposed. Now, there is a law that we cannot carry our firearms into the portion of Applebees that is off limits to persons under the age of 21 (the bar area). That area will be signed banning firearms and is a lawful condition of entry into that area.

You are mis-interpreting the phrase "lawful conditions". It is not, as you interpret it, "conditions that are imposed by law", but rather, "conditions of the property owner that are not disallowed by law".

The prohibition of firearms in a business is a condition that can lawfully be set by the owner or proprietor of said business. An "unlawful condition" would be a condition that is specifically disallowed by law, for example, a sign saying that no African Americans could enter would represent an unlawful restriction as it violates Federal and State anti-discrimination statutes. Lawful conditions are things like "No outside food or drink" conditions imposed by restaurants or movie theatres.

Old Dog: I completely missed the bit about Criminal Trespass in the First Degree when I looked up the misdemeanors that will lead to a revocation of a CPL. Thank you for correcting that for me. :)

Inspector3711
April 23, 2008, 01:56 AM
You might want to also consider a tussle with the SPD... I've seen heads split over much less than a concealed weapon. Let us all remember that the "war on terror" is under way and tolerance for anything (pistol??) that may harm the public in a large sports venue may be frowned on with a good amount of force regardless of the civil codes. You could conceiveably be dealing with an authority outside of our state as well. The feds could say you were a threat to national security and what would your argument be? As a Seattle area resident myself does I never forget WTO. Why risk it. Leave the heater in your car in a safe chained around your seatpost with the safe hidden from view. Carrying at Qwest (or any) field is not a sane practice at this point in history. Why is this even being considered? That you are protecting yourself from a bunch of unarmed sports fans? I hope peole arent that paranoid. Legality is not the issue here. All the authorities have to do is state that you were a perceived threat during a time of war and all the rules go down the tubes. What would you think in their place if there was a war on and terrorist threats were being reported and then you found a gun on some guy at the gate? You might give the guy a good whoopin just for being that stupid or at the least give him a good hard boot out of the gate. May even confiscate his hardware. It's like trying to smuggle a shoe bomb on a plane just for fun in their eyes. Who do you need to defend yourself against at a ball game anyway? The peanut guy may be annoying but don't shoot him! If nothing else you have to figure that if the word got out that they let you, an ordinary CCW holder, pass through then they would have to let all licensed carriers through... Then Mr. and Mrs. tree hugging whiner would raise all kinda heck for being penned up with a bunch of gun toting maniacs.. They would never let it happen in Seattle, too many news helicopters and too many soy latte's. In my opinion you just won't win here. Maybe in Texas but not in greenieville. Someone please find me a job in a place where I can be free to send volleys of hot lead from my guns without being restricted to a range or driving for 2 hours!

rainbowbob
April 23, 2008, 03:43 AM
Why is this even being considered? That you are protecting yourself from a bunch of unarmed sports fans? I hope people arent that paranoid.

I didn't see the "roll eyes" icon, so I couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic. Perhaps you've never been to Quest or Safeco Fields? Have you never parked under the Viaduct, and threaded your way to the gate through parking spot brokers, panhandlers, pick-pockets, scalpers, and other assorted local color? And what if there is an attack in a public stadium? Far fetched perhaps - but wouldn't you want to be armed? I'm not advocating breaking the law. I'm only pointing out that there are plenty of reasons why you would want to CCW in that area. At least as much as any other area of Seattle.

Old Dog
April 23, 2008, 03:55 AM
Bob, I'm in total agreement with you here. Remember a few years back when a citizen was fatally stabbed by a transient nutcase while leaving the stadium?

rainbowbob
April 23, 2008, 04:09 AM
Remember a few years back when a citizen was fatally stabbed by a transient nutcase while leaving the stadium?

I do indeed remember that tragedy.

Paranoid my achin' ...feet.

jddssc121
April 23, 2008, 06:05 AM
Inspector,

as Rainbowbob mentioned.....it's not the time during the game I am worried about, it is the the 10:30 PM late night walk down a dark ally to my parked car that presents the desire to CCW.

Dain Bramage
April 23, 2008, 02:01 PM
The only misdemeanors that will get your ccw license revoked in Washington state are tied to domestic violence. Note the proviso on top of Old Dog's post (highlights mine):

No convictions for any of the following crimes committed by one family member against another on or after July 1, 1993:
Assault IV
Coercion
Stalking
Reckless Endangerment in the second degree
Criminal Trespass in the first degree
Violation of the provisions of a protection order or no-contact order restraining the person or excluding the person from the residence

Therefore, trespassing in Safeco Field cannot be be used to revoke your ccw.

rainbowbob
April 23, 2008, 02:17 PM
No convictions for any of the following crimes committed by one family member against another..

Therefore, trespassing in Safeco Field cannot be be used to revoke your ccw...

Good eye D.B. By George I think you've got it! You may not be as dain bamaged as you make out.

Dain Bramage
April 23, 2008, 03:19 PM
You may not be as dain bamaged as you make out.


You never know. It might be spreading. :D

Gray Peterson
April 23, 2008, 04:48 PM
You might want to also consider a tussle with the SPD... I've seen heads split over much less than a concealed weapon. Let us all remember that the "war on terror" is under way and tolerance for anything (pistol??) that may harm the public in a large sports venue may be frowned on with a good amount of force regardless of the civil codes. You could conceiveably be dealing with an authority outside of our state as well. The feds could say you were a threat to national security and what would your argument be? As a Seattle area resident myself does I never forget WTO. Why risk it. Leave the heater in your car in a safe chained around your seatpost with the safe hidden from view. Carrying at Qwest (or any) field is not a sane practice at this point in history. Why is this even being considered? That you are protecting yourself from a bunch of unarmed sports fans? I hope peole arent that paranoid.

Inspector, I'm not for the most part concerned about inside of the stadium or the people inside. I'm more worried about the people OUTSIDE on the way to the car, or while taking transit to the game.

Legality is not the issue here. All the authorities have to do is state that you were a perceived threat during a time of war and all the rules go down the tubes. What would you think in their place if there was a war on and terrorist threats were being reported and then you found a gun on some guy at the gate? You might give the guy a good whoopin just for being that stupid or at the least give him a good hard boot out of the gate.

Any police officer that flat out beats someone for possessing a legally carried firearm is a disgrace to his uniform and should be stripped of his law enforcement authority. Under RCW 9.41.070, the carrying of a concealed pistol under license is considered in the statute to be a constitutionally protected right.

May even confiscate his hardware. It's like trying to smuggle a shoe bomb on a plane just for fun in their eyes. Who do you need to defend yourself against at a ball game anyway? The peanut guy may be annoying but don't shoot him! If nothing else you have to figure that if the word got out that they let you, an ordinary CCW holder, pass through then they would have to let all licensed carriers through... Then Mr. and Mrs. tree hugging whiner would raise all kinda heck for being penned up with a bunch of gun toting maniacs.. They would never let it happen in Seattle, too many news helicopters and too many soy latte's. In my opinion you just won't win here. Maybe in Texas but not in greenieville. Someone please find me a job in a place where I can be free to send volleys of hot lead from my guns without being restricted to a range or driving for 2 hours!

Again, forced confiscation of a handgun without lawful authority is THEFT. Again, it's not the people inside I'm worried about, it's the people outside in the SODO district that I'm more worried about.

We the people of this area paid for both Qwest Field and Safeco Field with our tax dollars, just to have it turned over to private leasee's who run roughshod over our rights. We all paid for the stadium, and the public stadium authority (the "public" agency responsible for operations of the stadiums) should be held accountable for this outrage.

357WheelGun
April 23, 2008, 05:06 PM
Quote:
No convictions for any of the following crimes committed by one family member against another..

Therefore, trespassing in Safeco Field cannot be be used to revoke your ccw...

Good eye D.B. By George I think you've got it! You may not be as dain bamaged as you make out.

It's still inviting a whole mess of legal trouble while it gets sorted out IMO.

XD_fan
April 24, 2008, 03:20 PM
The signs and policies at Qwest and Safeco have no basis in state law. You cannot carry at large outdoor MUSIC festivals but there is no such extenison of the law to either ball field. Now what the SPD will do to you is hard to say. They don't really have rational leadership (Where's your gun, Gil!) so you take your chances. I've carried in both Qwest and the Exhibition hall with no issues.

No weapons signs have no standing in Washington state. There is the usual, if they find out they can ask you to leave and refusal can get you attested for trespassing. No smoking signs actually have more force of law. Just remember concealed is concealed. YMMV

357WheelGun
April 24, 2008, 04:31 PM
No weapons signs have no standing in Washington state.

We covered this already. They do have legal standing as they establish that entry while carrying is trespassing, and if someone wants to be a hardass about it you will get charged with Criminal Trespass.

conrad carter
April 24, 2008, 07:33 PM
They search you when you enter the Stadiums. Some people get a better going over than others, and it's not worth it imho.

rainbowbob
April 24, 2008, 10:14 PM
I've never been body searched, although I've had them look in my bag

If you enjoyed reading about "CCW - WA State - Safeco & Quest Fields" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!