| Author | Post |
|---|
virginiatuck
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 07:31 am |
|
Is the following statement true or false?
The Heinz Field, PNC Park, Mellon Arena, and the future Consol Energy Center, among others, are all owned by the Sports & Exhibition Authority; formed by the City of Pittsburgh pursuant to the Public Auditorium Authorities Law, with its general purposes and powers laid out in 53 P.S. § 23845; therefore firearms carried on those premises for purposes not prohibited by the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania may not be regulated in any manner, as per 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6120.
Does a management company of public property have the right to regulate the carrying of firearms on the premises?
Does a lessee of public property have the right to regulate the carrying of firearms on the premises?
Similar questions have been asked of publicly owned or financed facilities in Virginia and so far the courts have ruled against at least one management company that prohibited firearms at the facilities. See Waterside. There has also been success without court involvement, see Richmond Coliseum.
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 12:13 pm |
|
virginiatuck wrote: Is the following statement true or false?
The Heinz Field, PNC Park, Mellon Arena, and the future Consol Energy Center, among others, are all owned by the Sports & Exhibition Authority; formed by the City of Pittsburgh pursuant to the Public Auditorium Authorities Law, with its general purposes and powers laid out in 53 P.S. § 23845; therefore firearms carried on those premises for purposes not prohibited by the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania may not be regulated in any manner, as per 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6120.
Does a management company of public property have the right to regulate the carrying of firearms on the premises?
Does a lessee of public property have the right to regulate the carrying of firearms on the premises?
Similar questions have been asked of publicly owned or financed facilities in Virginia and so far the courts have ruled against at least one management company that prohibited firearms at the facilities. See Waterside. There has also been success without court involvement, see Richmond Coliseum.
I think a private lessee (like a group running a rock conert for one night) could bar entry to gun carriers without running afoul of preemption in PA or VA. But not a management comapny (i.e., agent of locality).
Th problem with these things is determining who is setting the rule at any one point in time.
|
Farmer Troy
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 20th, 2008 |
| Location: | Western PA |
| Posts: | 101 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 12:57 pm |
|
Very good questions!!!
|
virginiatuck
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 03:54 pm |
|
Mike wrote:
I think a private lessee (like a group running a rock conert for one night) could bar entry to gun carriers without running afoul of preemption in PA or VA. But not a management comapny (i.e., agent of locality).
Th problem with these things is determining who is setting the rule at any one point in time.
One way to determine that could be to identify the employer of the event staff; the very people who are enforcing the rules. If the person conducting warrantless searches at the door and denying entry to a person lawfully carrying a firearm is employed by the management company, then I believe they are violating the law.
As for the lessee's rights: Can a lessee's rights supersede an owner's rights? If I lease my private property to an individual, that individual can not then deny entry to me. I can not trespass on my own property by carrying a firearm even if the lessee has a rule against it, can I?
So can the lessee deny entry to a citizen onto public property when they have not broken any laws?
How is the SEA granted the authority to lease the property in the first place? 53 P.S. § 23857 applies to leasing or conveying property to the City or County. Maybe the lease agreement, for instance, between the Pittsburgh Penguins and the SEA is not a property lease at all and is instead a permit to use the facilities; and in no way conveys any property rights to the "lessee."
Edit to answer question of where the SEA is granted authority to lease as lessor.
53 P.S. § 23845 Subsection A states:
A. Every Authority incorporated under this act [FN1] shall be a public body, corporate and politic, exercising public powers of the Commonwealth as an agency thereof, and shall be for the purpose of acquiring, holding, constructing, improving, maintaining and operating, owning, leasing, either in the capacity of lessor or lessee, public auditoriums, the purpose and interest of this act being to benefit the people of the Commonwealth by, among other things, increasing their commerce and prosperity and promoting their educational, cultural, physical, civic, social and moral welfare.
So the SEA does have the authority to lease.
Last edited on Sat Jun 6th, 2009 03:56 am by virginiatuck
|
Il_Duce
Banned
| Joined: | Sun May 3rd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 304 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 05:41 pm |
|
There are very strict conditions on which you can enter a leased property, depending on what sort of lease it is.
You may very well be unable to enter the property without 24 hours notice and an escort, for instance.
You may own it, but by leasing it, you transfer near-ownership control rights to the lessee that in some cases trump your ownership rights.
|
virginiatuck
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 06:04 pm |
|
Il_Duce wrote: There are very strict conditions on which you can enter a leased property, depending on what sort of lease it is.
You may very well be unable to enter the property without 24 hours notice and an escort, for instance.
You may own it, but by leasing it, you transfer near-ownership control rights to the lessee that in some cases trump your ownership rights.
Yes, that may be true. What I'm asking, though, is whether once I can legally enter the property can they forbid me from carrying a firearm?
|
CowboyKen
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu May 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 318 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 6th, 2009 06:58 pm |
|
virginiatuck wrote: Yes, that may be true. What I'm asking, though, is whether once I can legally enter the property can they forbid me from carrying a firearm?
IANAL so this is not legal advise.
I think that what you are really asking is NOT "once I can legally enter the property can they forbid me from carrying a firearm?" But, can they forbid me entry to the property if I am armed?
The answer, IMO, is maybe.
When you buy a ticket to an event you enter into a contract with the vender/event operator which may have conditions attached to it. These may include not allowing you to record or take pictures of the event, not allowing you to bring food or drink (which they want to sell to you at exorbitant prices) to the event and allowing them to search your person for stuff that they don't want you to bring into the event such as drugs and weapons.
If they stipulate conditions they can enforce them, most of the time, and prevent you from attending the event if you won't comply.
JMHO, YMMV.
Ken
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Sun Jun 7th, 2009 05:54 am |
|
virginiatuck wrote: As for the lessee's rights: Can a lessee's rights supersede an owner's rights? If I lease my private property to an individual, that individual can not then deny entry to me.
Of course the lessee can deny you entry - they essentially own it during the period of the lease.
|
CowboyKen
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu May 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 318 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 7th, 2009 01:27 pm |
|
Mike wrote: virginiatuck wrote: As for the lessee's rights: Can a lessee's rights supersede an owner's rights? If I lease my private property to an individual, that individual can not then deny entry to me.
Of course the lessee can deny you entry - they essentially own it during the period of the lease.
That depends on the terms of the lease. Most leases include a reasonable access clause which give the lessor the right of access for inspection, or other, purposes at "reasonable" times. IANAL and this is not legal advice.
Ken
|
KBCraig
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | Northeast Texas |
| Posts: | 1497 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 13th, 2009 02:35 am |
|
The lessor cannot confer rights they do not have; a lease cannot give to the lessee any rights or authority the lessor does not have.
The lessee is subject to the same restrictions as the owner.
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Sat Jun 13th, 2009 02:50 am |
|
KBCraig wrote: The lessor cannot confer rights they do not have; a lease cannot give to the lessee any rights or authority the lessor does not have.
The lessee is subject to the same restrictions as the owner.
But in this case preemption applies to the locality, not the land it owns; preemption does not run with the land like a covenant or easment.
If the lessee is not acting as an agent of the locality, preemption would not apply.
|
Grapeshot
Activist Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 13th, 2009 04:18 am |
|
Mike wrote: KBCraig wrote: The lessor cannot confer rights they do not have; a lease cannot give to the lessee any rights or authority the lessor does not have.
The lessee is subject to the same restrictions as the owner.
But in this case preemption applies to the locality, not the land it owns; preemption does not run with the land like a covenant or easment.
If the lessee is not acting as an agent of the locality, preemption would not apply.
Preemption is a restriction (a limiting condition) imposed on all municipalities within the state; therefore all municipal property i.e parks, coliseums, town/city halls are included via that ownership position. The ownership condition and thereby state preemption does not change by act of leasing the property for a particular event or to a certain venue.
BTW - IMHO - Real property law (leasing) is not the question here, hence the comparison of a covenant or easement is not pertinent.
Yata hey
Last edited on Sat Jun 13th, 2009 04:23 am by Grapeshot
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Sat Jun 13th, 2009 04:46 am |
|
Grapeshot wrote: Preemption is a restriction (a limiting condition) imposed on all municipalities within the state; therefore all municipal property i.e parks, coliseums, town/city halls are included via that ownership position.
Therefore schmerfor - look at the text of a preemption statute - in the case of PA and VA, neither bind private parties conduct when leasing land owned by a locality. You need to be faithful to a statute's text - the text applies to localities and agents of localities; not anybody else.
Let's say I rent a house from a locality and live in it; would preemption preclude me from ejecting anyone who I want from my property - and yes, while I am leasing land, it essentially is my property.
|
mjf
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 6th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 78 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 13th, 2009 04:59 pm |
|
Mike wrote: Grapeshot wrote: Preemption is a restriction (a limiting condition) imposed on all municipalities within the state; therefore all municipal property i.e parks, coliseums, town/city halls are included via that ownership position.
Therefore schmerfor - look at the text of a preemption statute - in the case of PA and VA, neither bind private parties conduct when leasing land owned by a locality. You need to be faithful to a statute's text - the text applies to localities and agents of localities; not anybody else.
Let's say I rent a house from a locality and live in it; would preemption preclude me from ejecting anyone who I want from my property - and yes, while I am leasing land, it essentially is my property.
Right, those who hold the lease have full authority to set whatever restrictions they want on the property. Like, no tennis shoes, no pink shirts, no baggy pants, no peanuts, no firemen, no firearms, no fires, no firehouse chili, no weatherballoons, etc.
It's not fair though, that their stadium, built with my tax money, and owned by the government, has a no firearm policy and metal detectors (at least Heinz field).
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Sat Jun 13th, 2009 09:48 pm |
|
mjf wrote: Mike wrote: those who hold the lease have full authority to set whatever restrictions they want on the property. Like, no tennis shoes, no pink shirts, no baggy pants, no peanuts, no firemen, no firearms, no fires, no firehouse chili, no weatherballoons, etc.
It's not fair though, that their stadium, built with my tax money, and owned by the government, has a no firearm policy and metal detectors (at least Heinz field).
But a mere lease is not enough to sever preemption either - you must look deeper into the lease's language intent of the arrangement.
For example, if a city "leases" say a Coliseum out to a management company to run it for the benifit of the public under further guidance by board members appointed by the city, then that comapny can arguably be said to be acting as an agent of the City.
Fun, huh??
|
Grapeshot
Activist Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 14th, 2009 12:34 pm |
|
Mike wrote: Grapeshot wrote: Preemption is a restriction (a limiting condition) imposed on all municipalities within the state; therefore all municipal property i.e parks, coliseums, town/city halls are included via that ownership position.
Therefore schmerfor - look at the text of a preemption statute - in the case of PA and VA, neither bind private parties conduct when leasing land owned by a locality. You need to be faithful to a statute's text - the text applies to localities and agents of localities; not anybody else.
Let's say I rent a house from a locality and live in it; would preemption preclude me from ejecting anyone who I want from my property - and yes, while I am leasing land, it essentially is my property.
Yes it is "essentially" your property but not totally. There are things you must do and others you cannot do - must operate/conduct self legally, cannot alter use as in make residential bldg. commercial etc.
Preemption text effects localities and agents thereof and their ability to exceed the state's authority to regulate guns specifically. How does leasing said property to a private venue alter or change this restriction?
How does leasing a city park to a private promoter who sells tickets to the event with a no guns restriction not violate preemption?
It would seem to be much the same difference.
Yata hey
|
CowboyKen
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu May 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 318 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 14th, 2009 02:16 pm |
|
Grapeshot wrote: How does leasing a city park to a private promoter who sells tickets to the event with a no guns restriction not violate preemption?
Yata hey
How can the lessee limit access, to a part or all of a "public" park, to ticket holders? If the lessee can in fact limit access then he can limit what you can bring with you.
Ken
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Sun Jun 14th, 2009 02:28 pm |
|
Grapeshot wrote: How does leasing a city park to a private promoter who sells tickets to the event with a no guns restriction not violate preemption?
If the arrangement removes the City and its agents from control of the event, and the city and agents are not creating the restriction thru the arrangement, then preemption is not triggered. Again, think of a simple example - city leases real estate with home upon it X. Man hoists party at home, but posts no gun sign at home and ejects those crrying guns. Preemption not relevant.
|
virginiatuck
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 14th, 2009 09:46 pm |
|
Mike wrote: Grapeshot wrote: How does leasing a city park to a private promoter who sells tickets to the event with a no guns restriction not violate preemption?
If the arrangement removes the City and its agents from control of the event, and the city and agents are not creating the restriction thru the arrangement, then preemption is not triggered. Again, think of a simple example - city leases real estate with home upon it X. Man hoists party at home, but posts no gun sign at home and ejects those crrying guns. Preemption not relevant.
The problem with the analogy of a place of residence to a civic center is that the place of residence was intended to be inhabited by an individual and their family. The civic center is intended to be used by the public at large. Sports teams and show promoters and performers do not live in the civic arena.
The SEA of Pittsburgh has a purpose defined in 53 P.S. § 23845. "[T]he purpose and interest of [the Public Auditorium Authorities Law] being to benefit the people of the Commonwealth by, among other things, increasing their commerce and prosperity and promoting their educational, cultural, physical, civic, social and moral welfare." Which, by the way, is quite different than that found in the Pennsylvania Housing Authorities law [35 P.S. § 1550], which grants powers "to prepare, carry out, acquire, lease, and operate housing projects [...]"
CowboyKen Wrote:
How can the lessee limit access, to a part or all of a "public" park, to ticket holders? If the lessee can in fact limit access then he can limit what you can bring with you.
If the City can collect parking tolls and designate where you can park and where you can't, then it can treat seats in an arena the same. I'm not feeling up to the task of digging for that cite. For the sake of this argument, can we agree that the City does have a right to collect a fee for the use of such a limited resource as an auditorium seat? And in paying such fee, we become lessees [or sub-lessees] of the property?
The SEA's leasing of property rights, as "a public body, corporate and politic, exercising public powers of the Commonwealth as an agency thereof," [53 P.S. § 23845] must conform to the purpose and interest of the act and all other laws of the Commonwealth. Likewise the lessee shall have no rights over the property that are not explicitly granted by the SEA. Otherwise the lease is illegal; a void contract.
The lessee can't prohibit arms unless the SEA grants that power or right in the contract; The SEA may not lease away the people's rights, including that to bear arms, nor in any way mandate that the lessee does so.
That's how I see it right now. Fire away.
|
CowboyKen
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu May 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 318 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 14th, 2009 10:10 pm |
|
virginiatuck wrote: CowboyKen Wrote:
How can the lessee limit access, to a part or all of a "public" park, to ticket holders? If the lessee can in fact limit access then he can limit what you can bring with you.
If the City can collect parking tolls and designate where you can park and where you can't, then it can treat seats in an arena the same. I'm not feeling up to the task of digging for that cite. For the sake of this argument, can we agree that the City does have a right to collect a fee for the use of such a limited resource as an auditorium seat? And in paying such fee, we become lessees [or sub-lessees] of the property?
This is just not the way real estate law works IMHO. Paying a fee for a seat does not make you a lessee, most commonly it grants you a license to attend an event. Usually it has conditions attached and they are often stated on the ticket. By buying the ticket you agree to the conditions. I happen to have a ticket stub from a NY Yankees game. It has 14 paragraphs of very fine print on the back. I could, but wont, type them out here. You get the idea. Ken
The SEA's leasing of property rights, as "a public body, corporate and politic, exercising public powers of the Commonwealth as an agency thereof," [53 P.S. § 23845] must conform to the purpose and interest of the act and all other laws of the Commonwealth. Likewise the lessee shall have no rights over the property that are not explicitly granted by the SEA. Otherwise the lease is illegal; a void contract.
The lessee can't prohibit arms unless the SEA grants that power or right in the contract; The SEA may not lease away the people's rights, including that to bear arms, nor in any way mandate that the lessee does so.
That's how I see it right now. Fire away.
You are welcome to your opinion. If you want to test it out I'd suggest that you bring your lawyer, and bail money, with you. I hope you win as all this stuff is a PITA for me too.
Ken
Last edited on Sun Jun 14th, 2009 10:11 pm by CowboyKen
|
Current time is 10:16 am | |
|
|
|
