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.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.
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.