Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
American
Joined
·
3,289 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Spokane County Sheriff asked to disarm when entering Spokane Arena
http://www.khq.com/story/34484781/spokane-county-sheriff-asked-to-disarm-when-entering-spokane-arena

SPOKANE, Wash. -
Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich was flabbergasted Saturday night when he says he tried to enter the Spokane Chiefs game at Spokane Arena to promote a charity hockey game and wasn't allowed inside.

The sheriff tells us he is always on duty, so he always carries his gun with him. But when he tried getting into the Spokane Arena Saturday, he was told by the security that he would have to take off his gun and leave it in his car because of a policy they have in place.

"This is bureaucracy and bureaucrats run wild. I've never sen anything quite like this," Sheriff Knezovich said. The sheriff says he plans to ask the board that operates the venue why he has to be disarmed because he says, "It makes zero sense."

"I can understand if we are off duty, if there's liquor being sold there, I can understand that. But when you are on duty and representing the county at an event, I've just never heard anything like this," Sheriff Knezovich said, " Many, many of the active shooter type situations that happen in this nation have been stopped by off duty police officers carrying their weapons."

KHQ reached out to the Spokane Arena for comment and has not heard back, but we do know they have been implementing new security measures like metal detectors and have also put a new policy in place banning firearms. The arena's policies can be read in full here: Spokane Arena - Policies
 

·
I watch the watchers
Joined
·
12,885 Posts
I was just reading about this on OpenCarry.Com

Key phrases "... in accordance with state law..." and "... prohibited items may include..." both carefully crafted to give the impression that weapons are prohibited when actuality 10.10.050 D.1. and RCW 9.41.300 (2)(b)(i) say that lawfully carried firearms are not prohibited.

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, firearms, knives or other such devices which are weapons or apparently capable of use as weapons.
(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 [Concealed pistol license] or exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060 [Exceptions to restrictions on carrying firearms; analagous to Georgia's 16-11-130]; or
(2) Any showing, demonstration, or lecture involving the exhibition of firearms.​
RCW 9.41.300 (2)(b)(i)
(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 or exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060; or
(ii) Any showing, demonstration, or lecture involving the exhibition of firearms.​
Do you ever get the idea that they want casual readers to gain an inference that any and all weapons are prohibited when that's not really the case?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
385 Posts
If he was really on the clock, I'd have told security to step aside or be arrested. Interfering with an officer in the performance of official duties.
And then made the phone call to produce enough officers to make it happen.
Apparently, Sheriffs don't carry the same pull in Washington state as in the south.
 

·
Proud GCO member.
Joined
·
7,960 Posts
If he was really on the clock, I'd have told security to step aside or be arrested. Interfering with an officer in the performance of official duties.
And then made the phone call to produce enough officers to make it happen.
Anyone law enforcement officer participating in such nonsense should have their certification yanked. Fortunately, this Sheriff was smart enough to handle the situation properly.
 

·
Member Georgia Carry
Joined
·
11,904 Posts
Don't they have state preemption? Isn't the area public property?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
385 Posts
Anyone law enforcement officer participating in such nonsense should have their certification yanked. Fortunately, this Sheriff was smart enough to handle the situation properly.
Phillip, I'm not trying to be argumentative with you and I respect your opinion, can you explain to me why you think that approach is nonsense?

I'll attempt to explain my view. The Sherriff is the chief law enforcement in each county. And also is elected by the people. He is always on duty. And rightly always armed. The OP stated that he was there to " promote a charity hockey game". If the task at the venue actually were in the official performance of his duties, I assume he was invited or scheduled to be there. If he wasn't there officially and the venue was private property then he could be denied entrance . But if he was there on duty, officially conducting business and it's not private property then he should be allowed entry. Not allowing him to perform his job would be tantamount to obstruction.

If I've missed something, please help me to see this properly.
 

·
I watch the watchers
Joined
·
12,885 Posts
Don't they have state preemption? Isn't the area public property?
Yes, they have state preemption.
The law states:
RCW 9.41.300
Weapons prohibited in certain placesâ€"Local laws and ordinancesâ€"Exceptionsâ€"Penalty.
(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
The Seattle Arena's legal counsel's position is that since arenas are not mentioned in the above, they are exempt from the exception. :neener:
 

·
Proud GCO member.
Joined
·
7,960 Posts
can you explain to me why you think that approach is nonsense?
Setting aside the intent of the law in favor of the literal wording and using that as justification to use force against someone you disagree with has absolutely no place in a civil society.

He is always on duty.
False. See previous paragraph about literal wording vs the intent of the law.

The OP stated that he was there to "promote a charity hockey game". If the task at the venue actually were in the official performance of his duties
Where in the state constitution that creates his office is "host charity hockey games"? Again, you are using the literal meaning of words to sidestep the intent of the law. There is a fundamental difference between his official duties as a law enforcement officer, and his pseudo-official duties as a goodwill ambassador.

If the security guard, who was just some poor guy doing his job, was impeding actual law enforcement activities, then arrest would be warranted. However to make "the phone call to produce enough officers to make it happen" is a horrific abuse of power.

Not allowing him to perform his job would be tantamount to obstruction.
The law is not a game where you just take phrases that sound "close enough" and use that as an excuse to deny citizens liberty at gunpoint. And if you think it is, you do not have any business working in a position of authority over anyone.

P.S. I think the Sheriff had a legal right to be there armed. I reject completely, however, your Buford T Justice approach to law enforcement. And apparently the Sheriff does as well because he did not do any of what you described above. Maybe because he values a citizen's liberty (and his office's reputation) over his presence at an after hours good will social event and decided that it was best handled with a phone call to the Arena manager instead of an armed posse.
 

·
American
Joined
·
3,289 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
My favorite comment from the news channel's comments section in Spokane:

"Spokane. . . . the special needs city of the INW. Hey Sheriff, hate to see the irony in this, but, given your previously expressed views as an anti-constitutional guy re: the almighty 2nd Amendment. Hopefully, this experience breaks a little of the government cheese from your arteries and gives you some opportunity to reflect on right and wrong. It's wrong to have your lawful firearms rights interfered with, huh? That feeling you're feeling there, bub, that is the same feeling Citizens feel every time a government drone uses his political position to undermine THEIR rights to possess and carry. Obviously, the bigger issue is the liberal insanity of Spokane and Washington's prevailing political madness, making "policies" such as those at the Arena quite commonplace. No wonder the jihadists continue to pour into your fell community. Up is down. Right is wrong and the clown shoe olympians of the left will GUARANTEE easy pickin's for the criminal/terrorist/leftist du jour on a mission, be it fueled by crystal meth, the Koran or any number of Soros-produced fictions for the feeble minded. As long as people give business to "Gun-Free" zones, people deserve their Main Street Alliance community leaderships."
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,784 Posts
I could not find him expressing anti-Second Amendment views. In fact, he had a public statement released condemning proposition I-594 as an erosion of the Second Amendment.
 

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
28,519 Posts
Anyone law enforcement officer participating in such nonsense should have their certification yanked. Fortunately, this Sheriff was smart enough to handle the situation properly.
Yeah, even if the law says Sheriffs are always on duty, and even if cops can carry on the badge, without any permit other than LEO credentials, and even if off-limits zones created by state law don't apply to cops, period...

... THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS CAN say "NO" to letting cops on their property, without a warrant, without exigent circumstances, when the cop doesn't need to enter that facility to carry out his core LEO duties.

Your rights as a private property owner INCLUDE the right to ban guns, to ban pets (except service animals for persons with a disability), to ban people you don't like (unless that's because of their race, religion, etc.).

**********

That's my opinion, although there's a growing trend in the law that would say that as long as cops and other government officials aren't "searching your property" to find evidence of a crime, the 4th Amendment isn't even in question. It just doesn't apply to cops / firefighters/ building inspectors / dog catchers coming into your yard, or even your home, for other purposes.
 

·
American
Joined
·
3,289 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Yeah, even if the law says Sheriffs are always on duty, and even if cops can carry on the badge, without any permit other than LEO credentials, and even if off-limits zones created by state law don't apply to cops, period...

... THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS CAN say "NO" to letting cops on their property, without a warrant, without exigent circumstances, when the cop doesn't need to enter that facility to carry out his core LEO duties.

Your rights as a private property owner INCLUDE the right to ban guns, to ban pets (except service animals for persons with a disability), to ban people you don't like (unless that's because of their race, religion, etc.).

**********

That's my opinion, although there's a growing trend in the law that would say that as long as cops and other government officials aren't "searching your property" to find evidence of a crime, the 4th Amendment isn't even in question. It just doesn't apply to cops / firefighters/ building inspectors / dog catchers coming into your yard, or even your home, for other purposes.
The problem is that the Arena, like most such facilities, is reportedly a government owned but privately operated facility.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top