A few comments from a WAC Volunteer (Re-stated, w/ corrections).
First off, I am not now and not until that day when pigs fly and hell freezes over (and I'm elected President of WAC, about equally likely) speaking on behalf of WAC officially or unofficially. Nor am I speaking for any other organization, employer, acquaintance, or anyone else but *me*.
Now that we have that out of the way, I can tell you what I've learned in 15-20 years of intermittent WAC membership.
The Washington Arms Collectors is a non-profit led by its member-elected officers and directors under the laws of the State of Washington. WAC is a private membership organization that puts on between 20 and 24 events (shows) for its members each year, admitting those members of the public willing to pay an admission fee and abide by WAC rules in addition to complying with all legal obligations.
The by-laws of WAC and the WAC "Rules of the Road" that are subordinate to the by-laws may be found at Link Removed ... I suggest study of those would contribute significantly to the tenor of this and similar conversations.
Current practice and procedure at WAC Shows (Enumclaw, Monroe, Puyallup) does not allow *any* person not either law enforcement or WAC-hired security to carry a loaded firearm at the show. At each show, bullet traps are available at the entrance to allow members to clear their sidearms and have them zip-tied by security. As you may note in the rules of the road, only members may purchase firearms at the show or bring firearms into the show (unloaded and zip-tied), however non-members may purchase most other items if a table operator is willing to sell to them. Loaded magazines, clips, and speed-loaders are all off limits at shows as welll.
My best information is that this approach evolved as a result of several ND's over a period of several years at the Puyallup location, after an ultimatum was issued by fair management that a single additional ND would result in immediate and permanent lease termination. As the Fairgrounds are a unique venue, I rather doubt they would have any difficulty replacing WAC as a tenant. I may be mistaken, as I do not have primary sources readily available to me.
WAC, on the other hand, would be unlikely to be able to replace the Fairgrounds (their largest and most successful location) in any sort of realistic time frame. Thus far, the response I've seen is to establish a building fund with the eventual goal of WAC purchasing and operating its' own primary property. I suspect that would be the point in time that the "Loaded Firearms Policy" would logically be reconsidered.
My understanding is that WAC has historically chosen to continue to offer the Gun Community some of the largest (and arguably best) gun shows in the nation rather than adhere to some form of ideological purity, holding that it is better that such a space exist for pro-gun interaction and networking (and more than a few sales) and more in the best interests of the Gun Community than throwing up its collective hands, taking its toys, and going home.
As to the insurance issue? Not everything is *insurable* at an affordable cost, if at all. WAC (and every gun show operator, open or membership) is in my understanding a high-risk group to begin with. Throwing together several thousand folks with random levels of safety skills in an environment where firearms handling is *expected* and then throwing loaded firearms into the mix ...may not be an acceptable level of risk for an insurer.
To address the comparison of a WAC show to a gun store? Have you ever seen a gun store that size? Every gun store I've ever been in, when it came to firearms handling, operated in a closely supervised fashion - typically one gun out, verified empty, being shown to one customer per "employee on deck". Three staff = max of three guns being shown at any one time, in other words. The tradeoff for the significantly greater freedom at WAC shows is, in my eyes, a pretty directly proportional focus on preventative safety measures.
WAC has publicly posted (see the website and the gate area at events) their policies. It is not their obligation (nor even possible) to somehow read the minds of all persons wishing to attend their events and then send them a copy of the rules by registered mail. Failure to adhere to those rules can result in ejection, termination of membership, and in truly special cases - arrest and prosecution. That is the right of any event-holding private organization.
Around since at least 1952 (and rumor has it, long before), WAC was not founded as a "gun rights" organization. It was founded as a collectors group, and while vastly changed since those founding days with a single location (the Renton High School gym), many of its traditions and bits of organizational culture come from those days. Today it is a multi-million dollar organization that, by its very structure (I can never remember 501(c)3 or (c)4) is prohibited from direct political participation. It may educate, litigate, and put on events for its members where one or both of these goals are pursued.
Of course, to do that, it must continue to *operate*.
And it is run, in the final analysis, by membership - that elects officers and directors, who in turn appoint committees/hire staff/contract for locations/etc.
Like any organization, WAC is imperfect - but is doing what it can with what it has. My own view is that WAC is undergoing another great leap forward - from operating in a reactive and familial mode appropriate to a smaller organization to a more pro-active approach that takes the longer view. Your mileage may vary. What I can say with certainty is that each of the officers and directors I've interacted with - no matter how much I disagree with them or take exception to their decisions/actions on occasion - are passionately dedicated to the cause of firearms rights in their best understanding of those rights and how best to pursue their restoration.
Tearing down an organization doing its best to serve our community, particularly one that has done quite well at it in the past does not strike me as terribly constructive. At least until you are willing to throw the dollars that will get them a venue they own and there WAC can have a completely (well, within the law, at least) free hand in setting the event rules.
Now, to review the first paragraph. I have the privilege to volunteer with WAC. My comments don't represent their views, only mine. I have an employer. My comments don't represent their views, either. Again, my views and recollections are purely my own. Finally, I'll assert that I'm human and thus vulnerable to fading memory, simple error, and being misinformed. I'm not getting paid for this bit, so my willingness to provide detailed citations is severely limited (in other words, you can use google/phones/email as well as I can).
GC
P.S. If this seems familiar, that's because it is. When engaging in the same discourse on the same topic with more or less the same group of folks with the only difference being location, I am somewhat unsure of the benefit of coming up with entirely new material to address the same points. YMMV.
