Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 46

Thread: How to ban OC at Hoedown..change venue

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,440

    How to ban OC at Hoedown..change venue

    WYCD and Detroit found a legal way to ban OC at the Hoedown this year...change venue. Now Comerica park is quite possibly public property as it is owned by an authority(there is that word again), but I highly doubt they will acquiesce and allow OC in Comerica Park. Good luck with the backlash for charging $30 for an event that has always been free.

    http://www.freep.com/article/2012031...text|FRONTPAGE

  2. #2
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    I heard Comerica was owned by Ilich...? But I don't know....
    Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first.

    I am not a lawyer (merely an omnipotent member of a continuum). The contents of this post are not a substitute for sound legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

    Comments and views stated in my post are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of Michigan Open Carry, Inc. unless stated otherwise in the post.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,440
    Location 2100 Woodward Avenue
    Detroit, Michigan 48201
    Coordinates 42°20′21″N 83°2′55″W
    Broke ground October 29, 1997
    Opened April 11, 2000
    Owner Detroit-Wayne County Stadium Authority
    Operator Ilitch Holdings, Inc.
    Surface Grass
    Construction cost $300 million
    ($405*million in 2012 dollars[1])

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comerica_Park

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Would the "or regulate in any other manner" part of the law apply here?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,440
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    Would the "or regulate in any other manner" part of the law apply here?
    Have you not followed the CADL case? One judge already ruled authorities are not bound by preemption. Although not precedent yet, it seems foolish to fight that fight until our appeal is heard and hopefully won.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Since it hasn't been settled, the judges ruling is just an opinion.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,440
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    Since it hasn't been settled, the judges ruling is just an opinion.
    Read my previous post...then read it again. If you still can't grasp what I'm saying, then go play in a parking lot.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Wyandotte, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    456
    I won't be wasting my money to go down there for this , especially if it is a PFZ per the stadium.

  9. #9
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by budlight View Post
    I won't be wasting my money to go down there for this , especially if it is a PFZ per the stadium.
    And they will be charging admission too! I hear it is $30 for the weekend...

  10. #10
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by scot623 View Post
    Have you not followed the CADL case? One judge already ruled authorities are not bound by preemption. Although not precedent yet, it seems foolish to fight that fight until our appeal is heard and hopefully won.
    That is a wise thing to do.

    BTW - I know the Lawyers have been not keen on the idea of challenging CADL per MCL 124.502 and MCL 124.504. I still believe that the case would be won quickest using that argument. While it may not set the precedent that some may want, THE GOAL IS TO WIN.

    Quote Originally Posted by URBAN COOPERATION ACT OF 1967 Act 7 of 1967 (Ex. Sess.)
    124.502 Definitions.

    Sec. 2.

    As used in this act:

    (a) “Interlocal agreement” means an agreement entered into under this act.

    (b) “Local governmental unit” means a county, city, village, township, or charter township.

    (c) “Province” means a province of Canada.

    (d) “Property” means any real or personal property, as described in section 34c of the general property tax act, 1893 PA 206, MCL 211.34c.

    (e) “Public agency” means a political subdivision of this state or of another state of the United States or of Canada, including, but not limited to, a state government; a county, city, village, township, charter township, school district, single or multipurpose special district, or single or multipurpose public authority; a provincial government, metropolitan government, borough, or other political subdivision of Canada; an agency of the United States government; or a similar entity of any other states of the United States and of Canada. As used in this subdivision, agency of the United States government includes an Indian tribe recognized by the federal government before 2000 that exercises governmental authority over land within this state, except that this act or any intergovernmental agreement entered into under this act shall not authorize the approval of a class III gaming compact negotiated under the Indian gaming regulatory act, Public Law 100-497, 102 Stat. 2467.

    (f) “State” means a state of the United States.

    124.504 Joint exercise of powers.

    Sec. 4.

    A public agency of this state may exercise jointly with any other public agency of this state, with a public agency of any other state of the United States, with a public agency of Canada, or with any public agency of the United States government any power, privilege, or authority that the agencies share in common and that each might exercise separately.
    CADL is formed of County of Ingham and the City of Lansing. The County of Ingham and the City of Lansing appoint members to the CADL Board. Upon dissolution, the assets of CADL would be distributed between the County of Ingham and the City of Lansing. It is a JOINT EXERCISE OF POWER to provide Library Services under the District Library Act for the County of Ingham and the City of Lansing. Due to this, MCL 124.504 clearly applies and CADL would therefore be Preempted.

    From the Michigan District Library Law:

    Quote Originally Posted by Introduction
    Michigan’s District Library Establishment Act, effective 22 May 1989, allows two or more municipalities to join together to form a district library. District library boards control district libraries and are taxing authorities pursuant to the Michigan Constitution, Article IX, section 6. As taxing authorities, the district library boards have the power to place a districtwide library millage question on the ballot for voter approval.
    Quote Originally Posted by ESTABLISHMENT
    To establish a district library, at least two municipalities must agree to join to provide library service. The statute defines a “municipality” as a city, village, school district, township, or county. The municipalities that join to establish a district library are referred to as “participating municipalities” in the statute.
    http://www.michigan.gov/documents/ha...aw_51001_7.pdf

    Since this law was passed in 1989, the Michigan Legislators would have been clearly aware of the URBAN COOPERATION ACT OF 1967.

    But hey, what do I know?

    IT DOES SEEM CLEARER EACH TIME I LOOK AT IT THAT MCL 124.504 IS THE WAY TO DEFEAT CADL ONCE AND FOR ALL.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    +1

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by scot623 View Post
    WYCD and Detroit found a legal way to ban OC at the Hoedown this year...change venue. Now Comerica park is quite possibly public property as it is owned by an authority(there is that word again), but I highly doubt they will acquiesce and allow OC in Comerica Park. Good luck with the backlash for charging $30 for an event that has always been free.

    http://www.freep.com/article/2012031...text|FRONTPAGE
    To be clear on this the Hoedown will not be "in" Comerica Park it will be "at" the park. By that I mean only using parking lots and external areas acording to people involved with the park.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Tucker6900's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Iowa, USA
    Posts
    1,249
    OC with a CPL......Problem solved.

  14. #14
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,446
    Quote Originally Posted by maustin195 View Post
    To be clear on this the Hoedown will not be "in" Comerica Park it will be "at" the park. By that I mean only using parking lots and external areas acording to people involved with the park.
    The parking lots are owned by whoever owns comerica park, therefore they control that portion of the property as well.

    The question as has been stated is, if Comerica is owned and operated by a municipal authority then preemption may or may not apply. Once a court of appeals decision is made one way or the other in regards to an authority, it sounds like MOC will not engage the Hoedown promoters.

    If MOC wins the court of appeals and it is found that an authority is a local unit of government and preemption applies then next year this issue will be taken on. Or, if MOC loses, the legislature can always correct it by including authorities in the preemption statute.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    The legislature isnt going do do a thing.

  16. #16
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    The legislature isnt going do do a thing.
    Oh ye of little faith.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    They have had the time, and the opportunity, and they know exactly what we want them to do, why we want it done, and how to do it. They swore an oath to the constitution, neither of which mean squat to them.
    Last edited by stainless1911; 03-13-2012 at 10:04 AM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    They have had the time, and the opportunity, and they know exactly wht we want them to do, why we want it done, and how to do it. They swore an oath to the constitution, neither of which mean squat ti them.
    It has been clearly and publicly stated that the Michigan Legislature is waiting for the Michigan Court of Appeals to Rule on the CADL Case before they act.

    Take your angst somewhere else.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    excuses, excuses.

  20. #20
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by PDinDetroit View Post
    It has been clearly and publicly stated that the Michigan Legislature is waiting for the Michigan Court of Appeals to Rule on the CADL Case before they act.

    Take your angst somewhere else.
    Really, when and by whom? Is this "official" or a rumor? Why would the legislature wait for the Michigan Court of Appeals? Perhaps the Michigan Court of Appeals is waiting for the legislature... who knows? It is surprising, too, that people are so quick to say that we should wait for a CADL decision to attempt to carry at the Hoedown... unless I have misunderstood the response.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer – I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  21. #21
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    Quote Originally Posted by DrTodd View Post
    Really, when and by whom? Is this "official" or a rumor? Why would the legislature wait for the Michigan Court of Appeals? Perhaps the Michigan Court of Appeals is waiting for the legislature... who knows? It is surprising, too, that people are so quick to say that we should wait for a CADL decision to attempt to carry at the Hoedown... unless I have misunderstood the response.
    We are all free individuals and each may do as he wishes. Michigan open carry has no plans to be getting involved in any lawsuit resulting from the hoedown as any such effort would be duplicate.

    That all being said, Rob is our person that is involved in lobbying the locals in the Detroit area. If he or someone else in leadership would like to address the matter with the "authority", I leave that to him.
    Last edited by TheQ; 03-13-2012 at 12:47 PM.
    Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first.

    I am not a lawyer (merely an omnipotent member of a continuum). The contents of this post are not a substitute for sound legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

    Comments and views stated in my post are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of Michigan Open Carry, Inc. unless stated otherwise in the post.

  22. #22
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by DrTodd View Post
    Really, when and by whom? Is this "official" or a rumor? Why would the legislature wait for the Michigan Court of Appeals? Perhaps the Michigan Court of Appeals is waiting for the legislature... who knows? It is surprising, too, that people are so quick to say that we should wait for a CADL decision to attempt to carry at the Hoedown... unless I have misunderstood the response.
    I will refer you to TheQ, scot623, and sprinklerguy as they are who stated it to me (among others - like the lawyers we are working with).

    If the Court of Appeals finds CADL is Preempted, then the Preemption Law has been upheld and does not require changes (even though there are changes we would like to see made). This is more than likely how the Michigan Legislators "see" it - Laws are "confirmed" to some degree by court cases such as with CADL (although that is not necessary). I am in no way saying it is "right", but I believe it to be the case.

    I do not think people are saying not to carry at the Hoedown, more so that there may not be clear legal standing either way until the CADL Decision is made. I believe that an argument may be made WRT MCL 124.504 more than likely, but I believe that Resources being limited cause priorities to be set.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    that only accunts for, in a sickeningly weak way, for the legislatures inaction on one small corner of the changes in law that need to be made. It says nothing of their incompetence in other matters such as transportation and PFZs, yet they can still screw around with letting military minors carry, while costing reciprocity in other states.

  24. #24
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    that only accunts for, in a sickeningly weak way, for the legislatures inaction on one small corner of the changes in law that need to be made. It says nothing of their incompetence in other matters such as transportation and PFZs, yet they can still screw around with letting military minors carry, while costing reciprocity in other states.
    You are I'll informed.

    What's more -- the military minor bills was merely introduced. It hasn't been heard. Many bills get introduced but never heard. Examples: the two bills to add libraries to 750.234d and 28.425o. Those bills (by the sponsor's own admission) were dead on arrival -- they were introduced to make certain people (CADL) "feel good".
    Last edited by TheQ; 03-13-2012 at 01:50 PM.
    Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first.

    I am not a lawyer (merely an omnipotent member of a continuum). The contents of this post are not a substitute for sound legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

    Comments and views stated in my post are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of Michigan Open Carry, Inc. unless stated otherwise in the post.

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    They had time to introduce it, that means they had time to do something more productive with their time.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •