Florida Concealed Carry banner
21 - 40 of 52 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
7,776 Posts
BrianB (and others here),
What are your thoughts on requiring the 3rd party (i.e., entity that is renting the venue) to pay to have an LEO present at the entry, who would then verify CCW permits?
And beyond that requirement, the 3rd party has no involvement whatsoever in CCW matters.

I guess I'm asking if you think that arrangement would strike a reasonable balance between the desires of all parties involved.
My assertions thus far have been for a scenario where the government owns the facility and it is being used for a government purpose (the government itself is putting on whatever the event is). When the government owns the facility, but rents it to a non-government-actor who then has the right to exclude the public (by say charging admission), I'm not so sure that it is clear that we can carry there.

So for example, the Lakeland Civic Center (or whatever it's called now) is owned by the City of Lakeland. It is "public property". But they rent portions of it to private entities as a normal course of business. When it is rented to a concert promoter, they have the right to control admission to the portion they rented - by charging admission, etc. At that point it may still be public property (owned by the government) but temporarily the tenant gets to control the use, who uses it, etc.

So when a gun show promoter rents a hall at the Lakeland Civic Center and decides to not allow concealed weapons into the gun show (as most of them do), they probably have the right to do that. It doesn't become illegal to carry there, but they can almost surely eject you - for probably just about any reason they choose as long as it doesn't violate the Civil Rights Act - as they temporarily have the right to control who does and does not attend their event.

All of that said, I don't think this is well settled (that a private actor who has rented a public space may set rules upon entry that the owner of the space cannot themselves set). It would be interesting to see what a court would say about it, but I would think that the court would find that the tenant's latitude to control the conduct, admission, etc. on the premises they have leased may be rather broad - perhaps even broader than the options open to the public owner.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Discussion Starter · #22 ·
Is it possible to attach a pdf here? I received the city's agreement with the vendor. Since I don't know how to upload I put it on my website at:
http://westbocanews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/bbq-exctd-agrmt.pdf

I don't see anything that authorizes weapons restrictions. It's not clearly a rental agreement though the term "rent" is used in places. The title is "Facility Use Agreement".

The language gives the BBQ operator right to use the facilities. City retains property rights.

Requires operator to provide security personnel through vendors having contracts with the city. Requires operator to abide and enforce rules of the amphitheater.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,662 Posts
My assertions thus far have been for a scenario where the government owns the facility and it is being used for a government purpose (the government itself is putting on whatever the event is). When the government owns the facility, but rents it to a non-government-actor who then has the right to exclude the public (by say charging admission), I'm not so sure that it is clear that we can carry there.

So for example, the Lakeland Civic Center (or whatever it's called now) is owned by the City of Lakeland. It is "public property". But they rent portions of it to private entities as a normal course of business. When it is rented to a concert promoter, they have the right to control admission to the portion they rented - by charging admission, etc. At that point it may still be public property (owned by the government) but temporarily the tenant gets to control the use, who uses it, etc.

So when a gun show promoter rents a hall at the Lakeland Civic Center and decides to not allow concealed weapons into the gun show (as most of them do), they probably have the right to do that. It doesn't become illegal to carry there, but they can almost surely eject you - for probably just about any reason they choose as long as it doesn't violate the Civil Rights Act - as they temporarily have the right to control who does and does not attend their event.

All of that said, I don't think this is well settled (that a private actor who has rented a public space may set rules upon entry that the owner of the space cannot themselves set). It would be interesting to see what a court would say about it, but I would think that the court would find that the tenant's latitude to control the conduct, admission, etc. on the premises they have leased may be rather broad - perhaps even broader than the options open to the public owner.
So it's NOT ok to violate someone's rights based on race/creed/color/sexual orientation HOWEVER, it IS ok to violate someone's (legal) rights when it comes to guns? It should be, follow ALL the laws or none at all IMO! Public property is PUBLIC property and ALL applicable laws should be followed. Whether or not it's a public OR private event should have absolutely no bearing on it. The gun show events are open to the general public, in PUBLIC buildings, (therefore they really DON'T have the right to control who does and doesn't enter) and SHOULDN'T be allowed to break/circumvent ANY law!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,064 Posts
I will just add:
I did a deep-dive research on an event coming up at the Mizner Amphitheater (Boca Raton).
Essentially, the event promoters are hidden behind a intricate web of LLC's and addresses that barely last a month.
Even going through SunBiz and Internet WhoIS searches weren't that much help.
And I like to think I'm a reasonably intelligent, diligent, qualified researcher.

So, to be clear, when our rights are violated, it's not even clear who's violating them!!
I might just ask to see the contract with the City on this one.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
7,776 Posts
So it's NOT ok to violate someone's rights based on race/creed/color/sexual orientation HOWEVER, it IS ok to violate someone's (legal) rights when it comes to guns? It should be, follow ALL the laws or none at all IMO! Public property is PUBLIC property and ALL applicable laws should be followed. Whether or not it's a public OR private event should have absolutely no bearing on it. The gun show events are open to the general public, in PUBLIC buildings, (therefore they really DON'T have the right to control who does and doesn't enter) and SHOULDN'T be allowed to break/circumvent ANY law!
Just telling you the law as it's written.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Discussion Starter · #27 ·
"So for example, the Lakeland Civic Center (or whatever it's called now) is owned by the City of Lakeland. It is "public property". But they rent portions of it to private entities as a normal course of business. When it is rented to a concert promoter, they have the right to control admission to the portion they rented - by charging admission, etc. At that point it may still be public property (owned by the government) but temporarily the tenant gets to control the use, who uses it, etc."

You could say the same for the American Airlines Arena in Miami. When they have a Miami Heat game they exclude firearms and that follows the state statute because the carry permit doesn't apply at athletic events.

But when they have a concert the statute does apply. I carried with no problem into an Ariana Grande concert (which makes even more sense now after Manchester).

On "renting" to third parties, at least in the agreement I saw for Mizner Park, the city retained property rights and only granted use privileges to the event company. If the city retains property rights, then state law still applies.

I'm not sure they even can transfer property rights for such a short duration, or at all. It is public property, owned by the government, the taxpayers. Does local government have the authority under state law to transfer property rights to such property?

But I'd rather not do this case in Palm Beach County, where the judges are probably more liberal. I'd rather see this pursued in a county where the voters are more respectful of our rights and less trusting of the idea that government will keep us safe (since we know that's false).
 

· Registered
Joined
·
7,776 Posts
"So for example, the Lakeland Civic Center (or whatever it's called now) is owned by the City of Lakeland. It is "public property". But they rent portions of it to private entities as a normal course of business. When it is rented to a concert promoter, they have the right to control admission to the portion they rented - by charging admission, etc. At that point it may still be public property (owned by the government) but temporarily the tenant gets to control the use, who uses it, etc."

You could say the same for the American Airlines Arena in Miami. When they have a Miami Heat game they exclude firearms and that follows the state statute because the carry permit doesn't apply at athletic events.

But when they have a concert the statute does apply. I carried with no problem into an Ariana Grande concert (which makes even more sense now after Manchester).

On "renting" to third parties, at least in the agreement I saw for Mizner Park, the city retained property rights and only granted use privileges to the event company. If the city retains property rights, then state law still applies.

I'm not sure they even can transfer property rights for such a short duration, or at all. It is public property, owned by the government, the taxpayers. Does local government have the authority under state law to transfer property rights to such property?

But I'd rather not do this case in Palm Beach County, where the judges are probably more liberal. I'd rather see this pursued in a county where the voters are more respectful of our rights and less trusting of the idea that government will keep us safe (since we know that's false).
Not being an attorney I have no idea what case law is on this. It may be naive but I tend to think of it similar to the way one rents a dwelling. When someone rents a dwelling from someone else they gain certain rights in the process. Even the landlord himself is not allowed into the dwelling except under circumstances dictated in the lease. Does the State of Florida own any "public housing" the way the feds do? If so, would we have right of armed access to all such property? No, because the tenants have the exclusive right of occupancy. The fact that they may choose to invite the public over, say for a party, would not foreclose their right to deny any particular guest, for any reason they choose.

My wife and I had our wedding in a hall we rented in a building owned by the City of Largo (almost 30 years ago now). Since it was public property would we have been forced to allow all comers, with no control over entry, or rules for such?

Again, I'd be shocked if there isn't already a ton of case law on what rights a lessor of public property has.
 

· Administrator
Joined
·
32,659 Posts
...

But I'd rather not do this case in Palm Beach County, where the judges are probably more liberal. I'd rather see this pursued in a county where the voters are more respectful of our rights and less trusting of the idea that government will keep us safe (since we know that's false).
I believe Florida Carry has identified such a case and is "working on it." :popcorn
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,662 Posts
Not being an attorney I have no idea what case law is on this. It may be naive but I tend to think of it similar to the way one rents a dwelling. When someone rents a dwelling from someone else they gain certain rights in the process. Even the landlord himself is not allowed into the dwelling except under circumstances dictated in the lease. Does the State of Florida own any "public housing" the way the feds do? If so, would we have right of armed access to all such property? No, because the tenants have the exclusive right of occupancy. The fact that they may choose to invite the public over, say for a party, would not foreclose their right to deny any particular guest, for any reason they choose.

My wife and I had our wedding in a hall we rented in a building owned by the City of Largo (almost 30 years ago now). Since it was public property would we have been forced to allow all comers, with no control over entry, or rules for such?

Again, I'd be shocked if there isn't already a ton of case law on what rights a lessor of public property has.
Public housing/your dwelling is private" and even the government has rules they/ the renters must follow. A venue, open to the general "Public" i.e. Concert/gun show/craft show/car show..., is NOT "private" and therefore should have to follow the same rules as when the city is sponsoring an event! A private event, only open to those asked/invited may be a different story.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
57,732 Posts
I was denied entry with my concealed firearm yesterday despite having a license. I'll be emailing the County attorney and filing suit. Will post updates.
You brought a 5+ year old thread back from the dead. :unsure:
 

· Administrator
Joined
·
32,659 Posts
I was denied entry with my concealed firearm yesterday despite having a license. I'll be emailing the County attorney and filing suit. Will post updates.
Welcome to FCC from Palm Beach County, mrfearz! 🍻

I wish you luck in that and we look forward to hearing the outcome, but have you read post #21 of this thread above, even though it was posted 5 years ago? As far as anyone is aware, there's been no movement in the courts on this issue of carrying on local government owned facilities when all or portions of have been leased out to a private entity for an event that they then have a right to control access to that event. :unsure:

Since this was your very first post to FCC in a 5 year old dormant thread AND without first introducing yourself. So please now take the time to post you're own Introduction to FCC, letting forum members get to know you a little, particularly with regard to our inherent right to keep and bear arms. You can do that by going to the Introduce Yourself section of the Welcome to Florida Concealed Carry section and starting your very own introduction thread. Then you'll find that lots of other FCC members will know to chime in to properly welcome you to the forum, and will be more responsive in answering your questions! Also, if you're a veteran, take a look at our Military Service Thread where you'll find many of us there, too!

In case you weren't aware, you can stay current on pertinent Florida Statutes regarding use of force and firearms law by going right to the source using these links for Chapter 776 - Justifiable Use of Force and Chapter 790 - Weapons and Firearms. I'd also like to suggest you obtain your own copy of FLORIDA FIREARMS Law, Use & Ownership by Jon Gutmacher!

Again, welcome to FCC! :cool:
 

· Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Welcome to FCC from Palm Beach County, mrfearz! 🍻

I wish you luck in that and we look forward to hearing the outcome, but have you read post #21 of this thread above, even though it was posted 5 years ago? As far as anyone is aware, there's been no movement in the courts on this issue of carrying on local government owned facilities when all or portions of have been leased out to a private entity for an event that they then have a right to control access to that event. :unsure:

Since this was your very first post to FCC in a 5 year old dormant thread AND without first introducing yourself. So please now take the time to post you're own Introduction to FCC, letting forum members get to know you a little, particularly with regard to our inherent right to keep and bear arms. You can do that by going to the Introduce Yourself section of the Welcome to Florida Concealed Carry section and starting your very own introduction thread. Then you'll find that lots of other FCC members will know to chime in to properly welcome you to the forum, and will be more responsive in answering your questions! Also, if you're a veteran, take a look at our Military Service Thread where you'll find many of us there, too!

In case you weren't aware, you can stay current on pertinent Florida Statutes regarding use of force and firearms law by going right to the source using these links for Chapter 776 - Justifiable Use of Force and Chapter 790 - Weapons and Firearms. I'd also like to suggest you obtain your own copy of FLORIDA FIREARMS Law, Use & Ownership by Jon Gutmacher!

Again, welcome to FCC! :cool:
I've read post #21 which is wholly irrelevant.

The Broward Center for the Performing Arts is a county-owned facility and is operated by the Performing Arts Center Authority, which is a legislatively created special district and public body. It is not rented out or leased to a third party; it is operated by public body.

I've emailed the County Attorney and will post the response.

copy of my correspondence below:


Mr. Meyers:

My name is X. On November 23, 2022, at around 1:15 PM, my mother, my daughter, and I arrived at the Broward Center for the Performing Arts to see the 2:00 PM showing of the musical Hamilton. Upon arrival at the entrance, I noticed that there were metal detectors and employees with metal detecting wands. Being duly licensed to carry a firearm, I asked a security guard -- before attempting to enter -- whether it was going to be a problem if I had my firearm on me. He told me I was not allowed in with it. I asked for a police officer. The head of security for the Broward Center, Tom Harrington, eventually showed up. I explained to him that I am licensed to carry my weapon and asked whether it would be a problem. He quickly told me I wasn't going in with my firearm, despite being licensed. I explained to him that it was a violation of my rights, and his response was "I'm an ex-cop". He then told me that they also serve alcohol, so I'm not allowed to bring a firearm in.

I returned my firearm to my vehicle and proceeded to attend the show.

As you know, 790.33, Fla. Stat., specifically preempts existing and future county, city, town, or municipal ordinances or any administrative regulations or rules adopted by local or state government relating thereto, and that any such existing ordinances, rules, or regulations are hereby declared null and void. The policy listed on the Broward Center's website (https://www.browardcenter.org/visit/security) is in direct violation of the law, my rights, and the rights of all licensed citizens in this state. The policy reads as follows: Guests are prohibited from bringing or possessing weapons of any kind into the Broward Center for the Performing Arts or on any portion of its premises (excluding locked private vehicles in parking areas). PACA does not provide weapons lockers and weapons may not be checked in with any staff or security personnel. Any patron found in possession of a weapon will be asked by PACA staff to return the item to his or her vehicle.

This is a clear violation of Florida law. The Broward Center for the Performing Arts facility is owned by Broward County. The Performing Arts Center Authority, which operates the Broward Center for the Performing arts is a public body created by the legislature as a special governmental district to perform public services. Chapter 2005-335, House Bill 1361, Laws of Florida.

790.06(12)(a), Fla. Stat. specifically enumerates places where firearms cannot be carried (despite having a license). The Broward Center for the Performing Arts does not fall within any of the enumerated places where carrying a firearm is unauthorized.

At this time, I am seeking a declaration from you, as the County Attorney, that I am, now and in the future, as a Florida citizen licensed to carry a firearm, permitted inside of the Broward Center for the Performing Arts with my firearm while I am licensed. I am also requesting a formal policy revision for the Broward Center, as it is specifically in violation of Florida Law. I am requesting that this information be conveyed to Mr. Harrington, as head of security for the Broward Center, to the governing body of the Broward Center and PACA, and to any and all other County/Public facilities that currently have illegal and violative policies, procedures, and/or regulations in place, which are denying law-abiding citizens from exercising their protected rights.

Please also consider this notice to preserve any and all video surveillance of me on November 23, 2022 at the northernmost entrance of the Au-Rene theater between 1:20 and 1:40 PM. Specifically, the area depicted below. A lawsuit will be filed if this cannot be amicably resolved and destruction of the videographic or photographic evidence can be considered spoliation.

As an elected official whose duty it is to protect the rights of its citizens, it is my hope that you take my request seriously and do the right thing.

Please feel free to contact me to discuss further. Should I not hear back by December 2, 2022 at 5:00 PM, I will be filing a lawsuit to protect my rights and the rights of the citizens of the great state of Florida.

Sincerely,
X
 

· Registered
Joined
·
21,712 Posts
"i'm a former cop" and "we serve alcohol"...well then i guess that summarizes it neatly sir...you dont have a clue what youre talking about...

did you ask him about a 3 step rule?...lol...
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeerHunter

· Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
"i'm a former cop" and "we serve alcohol"...well then i guess that summarizes it neatly sir...you dont have a clue what youre talking about...

did you ask him about a 3 step rule?...lol...
Yeah.. when he dropped the "ex-cop" line in the first 3 seconds of the conversation, I knew it was a foregone conclusion that he would be a reasonable adult.
 

· Administrator
Joined
·
32,659 Posts
I should have created an entirely new thread? Seems pretty relevant. Not sure what the age of the thread has to do with anything.
It is fine to post here as it very relevant to the existing thread. I also agree your specific situation and post #21 isn't relevant to it. My first paragraph in post #33 was because there were no details in your post #31 and I was just making sure an apparent new member was 1) welcomed, 2) reminded to make an Introduction since we get a lot of posts to old threads that 1) seem to ignore the posts before it, hasn't Introduced themselves to FCC, and 3) the poster doesn't understand F.S. Chapter 790 and the limits of State Pre-emption of firearms law. You on the other hand, appear to be well versed and we look forward to seeing where this case goes because this situation needs to put Broward Co. in their place and become settled law, state-wide. Broward Co. facilities have a long history of ignoring State pre-emption and until someone puts them in their place, this situation will continue. Getting rid of happily now former Sheriff Scott Israel was a good start, but there's much work to do on Broward Co. Thanks for picking up the fight and letting us know about it! (y)(y)

The arrogance and ignorance of their "ex cop" Head of Security is both laughable and an embarrassment, but not at all surprising, being that it's Broward Co. SCROOM! :mad:
 

· Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
It is fine to post here as it very relevant to the existing thread. I also agree your specific situation and post #21 isn't relevant to it. My first paragraph in post #33 was because there were no details in your post #31 and I was just making sure an apparent new member was 1) welcomed, 2) reminded to make an Introduction since we get a lot of posts to old threads that 1) seem to ignore the posts before it, hasn't Introduced themselves to FCC, and 3) the poster doesn't understand F.S. Chapter 790 and the limits of State Pre-emption of firearms law. You on the other hand, appear to be well versed and we look forward to seeing where this case goes because this situation needs to put Broward Co. in their place and become settled law, state-wide. Broward Co. facilities have a long history of ignoring State pre-emption and until someone puts them in their place, this situation will continue. Getting rid of happily now former Sheriff Scott Israel was a good start, but there's much work to do on Broward Co. Thanks for picking up the fight and letting us know about it! (y)(y)

The arrogance and ignorance of their "ex cop" Head of Security is both laughable and an embarrassment, but not at all surprising, being that it's Broward Co. SCROOM! :mad:
Thanks.

I'm a lawyer, but didn't want to put that in the email since 1) I shouldn't have to, 2) I don't want special treatment because I happen to understand the legal system and how to navigate it, and 3) (opposite of 2), I didn't want to make it extra combative or adversarial. Whether I'm a lawyer shouldn't matter to the County.

I also don't really want the guy to lose his job -- but he was so damn smug.
 

· Administrator
Joined
·
32,659 Posts
Thanks.

I'm a lawyer, but didn't want to put that in the email since 1) I shouldn't have to, 2) I don't want special treatment because I happen to understand the legal system and how to navigate it, and 3) (opposite of 2), I didn't want to make it extra combative or adversarial. Whether I'm a lawyer shouldn't matter to the County.

I also don't really want the guy to lose his job -- but he was so damn smug.
Agreed and it's much better to educate these people, making them understand the logical and legal fallacy in their line of thinking! This is going to be real interesting to watch and on behalf of all of FCC, please accept my sincere thanks! Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours, sir! (y)(y) 🤠
 
21 - 40 of 52 Posts
Top