• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Cobo preempted?

Raggs

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2012
Messages
1,181
Location
Wild Wild West Michigan
Is Cobo Center preempted for event like the Car Show?

Cobo Center is managed and operated by the Detroit Regional Convention Facility Authority (DRCFA). The five-member Authority Board consists of one representative from each of five government agencies – the City of Detroit, State of Michigan and the three metro-Detroit counties of Wayne, Oakland and Macomb.
 

bigt8261

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
181
Location
Grand Rapids
I would say Cobo is, but the organizer of the event may not be. The whole private entity leasing public space thing.
 

lapeer20m

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
928
Location
Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
This question comes up every year just before the auto show.

The prevailing thought seems to be that they likely are preempted but its yet to be litigated in court. It's possible although a poor argument in my opinion that by leasing the property the naias can prohibit firearms.

In reality, past practice is that security is lazy and rarely wands anybody. When they do wand folks, they never go below the knees. I always dress nice and carry concealed in an ankle holster until I pass through security. Then I go into the restroom just inside the event and put my glock back into my iwb holster. I've never been wanded or searched.

I don't think it's unlawful to carry there but if they knew you were carrying they would likely ask you to leave.
 

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
2A lawyers I've talked to say: it'd be an interesting case, but the other side would likely prevail.

That was 3 lawyers polled, all with the same opinion.
 
Last edited:

FreeInAZ

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
2,508
Location
Secret Bunker
2A lawyers I've talked to say: it'd be an interesting case, but the other side would likely prevail.

That was 3 lawyers polled, all with the same opinion.

The sad thing is: we now have a court decision on the books = CADL vs MOC which makes it clear that "authorities" are not free of preemption. Those who enforce the law clearly don't agree... go figure? Besides,why would anyone need a gun in peaceful, law and order town like Detroit? :p
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny4a-oxOndo
 

bigt8261

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
181
Location
Grand Rapids
CADL v MOC indicates that Cobo is preempted, however, it does not indicate that a lessee is too. If Cobo were to hold it's own event, or if CADL were to hold an event at Cobo, then preemption would be in full effect.
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
I would say Cobo is, but the organizer of the event may not be. The whole private entity leasing public space thing.
This argument is so poor I don't know why it's brought up. If it had standing then every municipal building, and authority would rent/lease their buildings (ad infinitum) to a private person, for say, $1 and that person could ban guns. Would that hold up? Unlikely. Municipal property is municipal regardless of who might occupy it.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(z3...g.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-123-1102

FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION (EXCERPT)

Act 319 of 1990

123.1102 Regulation of pistols or other firearms.
Sec. 2.
A local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state.

bold added by me for emphasis...

Ummm... wouldn't "a local unit of government" (an "authority?) be guilty of "regulate in any other manner" when signing a leasing contract with a private entity that has a gun ban in it?

This wouldn't be a private property rights of the leasee issue... it would be an issue of the local unit of government violating MCL 123.1102 by signing the lease to begin with. Correct?

Or are there some Federal or State laws that allow a unit of government to violate MCL123.1102?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(z3...g.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-123-1102

FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION (EXCERPT)

Act 319 of 1990

123.1102 Regulation of pistols or other firearms.
Sec. 2.
A local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state.

bold added by me for emphasis...

Ummm... wouldn't "a local unit of government" (an "authority?) be guilty of "regulate in any other manner" when signing a leasing contract with a private entity that has a gun ban in it?

This wouldn't be a private property rights of the lessee issue... it would be an issue of the local unit of government violating MCL 123.1102 by signing the lease to begin with. Correct?

Or are there some Federal or State laws that allow a unit of government to violate MCL123.1102?

This is what you COULD argue if you decide to test the preemption issue in regards to a lease of public property. I think you'd have a case...how strong of one is another question. Understand that there is no Michigan case law concerning the lease of public property and how that interacts with preemption. Although there are two strong firearm pre-preemption cases that would come into play in any argument, and there is the strong argument that Venator makes (above), would it be enough to win? I would like to think so, but we know how that can go.
 
Top