I see what you're going for there with the breaking and entering along with trespassing, but you're right, that isn't what I was thinking of. After a little looking I would only assume you really meant RCW 9.41.300 though that also says people with permits are exempt from the ban.
I definitely did not mean that law.
Your argument might make more sense if it were Kumoricon's private property, but to my knowledge it is public property and hotel property.
There is a level of indirection. Kumoricon is a private event and thus sets its own rules, with the hotel's blessing (within the limits agreed to by the hotel).
If you knew what court ruling I was talking about you would know it does not just apply to government-owned universities.
I didn't know, and your description didn't look like it was enough to Google on (and reliably know we were talking about the same case).
In addition to that, doesn't even bring up the application of the 2nd amendment. The court was ruling that the universities did not have the power that is only held by proper state legislative bodies.
http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A142974.pdf
You're right, the decision did not decide any question about the second amendment. It was a pre-emption question.
I skimmed through the entire decision and closely read a lot of it, and it
does appear to apply
only to government universities. The question was whether the pre-emption covered the Oregon State Board of Higher Education. The decision hinged on the fact that regulatory rules have the force of law, and thus fall under the pre-emption.
In contrast, Kumoricon is not passing anything with the force of law. It is setting a condition: To be a member of Kumoricon and to be in convention space, you must voluntarily agree to these rules. If you do not agree, the venue will require you to leave and if you don't, hold that you are trespassing. Hence, my cite of Washington's trespassing laws,
not firearms laws.
You are acting as if I were suggesting the allowance of a real firearm to be used as props.
No. I'm recognizing that by disallowing firearms, even if concealed, we make the factual evaluation of people's actions more clear-cut.
My points are not inapplicable and you are coming across as someone who does not know what they are talking about or are perhaps too immature, irresponsible, or inexperienced to know the difference of responsibility between a prop and the real thing.
It doesn't matter whether I am all of those things; some attendees are. Not all attendees are familiar with our exact weapon policies, and if we had different policies that had one section for "prop" policies, but then stated that none of it applied to concealed carry (and only when concealed), it would make things more complex. Yes, nearly all concealed carry owners know responsible gun handling, but not all attendees do and know how it will be handled, and it may create the potential for fear when realistic-looking (or real) guns are spotted.
Washington allows open carry. So we would need to make our policies not allow open carry, but exempt concealed carry. This creates a situation where a person who carries openly (but not in a manner qualifying as brandishing, which would be illegal, and thus could warrant a police response) would need to be told by either Kumoricon or hotel staff to either leave or to conceal the weapon. This is a situation which creates ambiguity in the minds of attendees who are too "inexperienced" to know the nuances of gun ownership.
Virtually every anime convention disallows functioning firearms. So yes, you are right, we could probably craft a set of policies and training that would allow concealed carry. This would require extensive legal research on our part as we would be among the first or only conventions to do this. We would need to account for situations such as non-badge-holders (who thus have not agreed to the policies) demonstrating open carry (for example in the hotel lobbies) as some people in Seattle routinely do as a sort of publicity stunt, and make sure our staff know the appropriate nuances and ways to respond.
If you think the above reveals that I am too ignorant of the subject matter, please understand that the required level of knowledge is not universal and that it means we would need to consult paid counsel to do this sort of research.
There's another point that settles all of this. The Hilton Vancouver Washington itself does not allow any firearms. So the situation is literally out of our hands. However, the above discussion illustrated all of the reasons for our policies as if we were in a venue without this restriction.
What makes you think I didn't know that? I went last year and saw the security in place in addition to the police patrols. I also know from my many friends in law enforcement that even armed security guards are trained to run from a threat and wait for police to respond in addition to being automatically fired from their job if they do decide to take care of the threat themselves (depending on the company of course). If the police arrive within 90 seconds of a shooting that causes so many casualties, why would it be any better at a convention?
Because there are other factors that change this situation, which are known to the Kumoricon board and on which we have nothing to announce yet.
If someone is taking the responsibility of protecting over 4000 people upon themselves and away from the people legally capable of doing so then they should expect no less even if I did neglect to bring it to your attention. That responsibility is much heavier a burden than it sounds in text form.
Kumoricon is doing no such thing, and is not taking responsibility of "protecting" our attendees. You are voluntarily choosing to become a Kumoricon member, and if you wish to only travel to places where concealed carry is allowed, that is your choice. But we are taking away nobody's legal rights.
