• 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.

Detroit Zoo OC

SpringerXDacp

New member
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
3,341
Location
Burton, Michigan
imported post

DrTodd wrote:
Where are the signs located?
The last time I was there was about 30 years ago with wife, daughter and a friend. At that time I paid no attention to signs. Based on what I've read at MGO, the sign(s) are at the entrance.
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
imported post

FatboyCykes wrote:
DrTodd wrote:
Venator,

You are correct, OC appears to be legal.
With, and only with a CPL though.
On what grounds does it fall under a Sec. 234d "Weapons Free Zone"?



Sec. 234d (1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2), a person shall not possess a firearm on the premises
of any of the following:
a) A depository financial institution or a subsidiary or affiliate of a depository financial institution.
b) A church or other house of religious worship.
c) A court.
d) A theatre.
e) A sports arena.
f) A day care center.
g) A hospital.
h) An establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control act,…
(2) This section does not apply to any of the following:
a) A person who owns, or is employed by or contracted by, an entity described in subsection (1) if the possession
of that firearm is to provide security services for that entity.
b) A peace officer.
c) A person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
imported post

SpringerXDacp wrote:
Venator wrote:
SpringerXDacp wrote:
Ifanyone thinks the Zoo is considered to be an entertainment facility, then per Section 5o, if it has a seating capacity of 2500 or more, then it's a CPZ. Therefore, per Section 5o, it's illegal to CC at the Zoo. And, if you do not have a CPL, then per Section 234d, it's illegal to OC.
Why is OC illegal? Entertainment facility is not in .234d. And if you have a CPL then OC is legal due to the exception in .234d.

If it's considered to be an entertainment facility....

We don't know for sure at this time if it is or isn't. I know this subject has been beaten to death over at MGO over the years and many who CC are relying on OAG 7120 for lawful carry.
I don't get it. Entertainment facility (EF)is NOT mentioned in .234d, so OC is covered by preemption. If it is in regards to the concealed carry statute, OC is legal with or without a CPL. According to the AG opinion the zoo would not be considered an EF.
 

SpringerXDacp

New member
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
3,341
Location
Burton, Michigan
imported post

Venator wrote:
SNIP
I don't get it. Entertainment facility (EF)is NOT mentioned in .234d, so OC is covered by preemption. If it is in regards to the concealed carry statute, OC is legal with or without a CPL. According to the AG opinion the zoo would not be considered an EF.
I know that now...again that is. If 234d did not list sports arena, it would be easier for me to remember.

IIRC, preemption was the question mark on the subject over at MGO. That, and who actually owns/maintains the Zoo was also questioned. I found it to be somewhat similar to the Metro Parks debate, only worse.
 

conservative85

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2008
Messages
625
Location
, ,
imported post

I believe the Detroit Zoo in Royal oak :shock: ispublic funded,I also thinkthe AG's opinion would classify this as a park/recreation facility so preemption would stand. As far as the sign, I would ask and research as to the actual seating capacity( fire code would be some help). If the sign is wrong then you could claim false advertisement;).

Posted informational signsare not an extension of the law(IMHO) nor is it a state law that a sign forbidding fire arm has to be posted, there for if one is posted it is not breaking the law to disregard. While it may call some attention from the law, it is not breaking a law.

Trespassing can only be charged if you are asked to leave and do not. I also believe that trespass can only be on private property, or a secure or restricted area(posted clearly of course)

Just to be safe thou I'd OC with CPL.
 

FatboyCykes

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2009
Messages
942
Location
Warren, Michigan, USA
imported post

Venator wrote:
FatboyCykes wrote:
DrTodd wrote:
Venator,

You are correct, OC appears to be legal.
With, and only with a CPL though.
How is it illegal?
Per the AG opinion posted...

A reading of all the words contained in section 5o(1)(f) of the Act supports the conclusion that the Legislature intended that the term "entertainment facility" constitute a structure or building that has a known seating capacity of 2,500 or more persons, or that has signs above each public entrance stating that the facility has a seating capacity of 2,500 or more persons. Since the Legislature has not required that an entertainment facility be totally self-enclosed, such a facility could consist of a bandshell, amphitheater, or similar structure, provided it has the required, known seating capacity noted above or has appropriate signage above each public entrance indicating a seating capacity of 2,500 or more. This reading of section 5o(1)(f) is supported by the legislative history of 2000 HB 4530, enacted as 2000 PA 231. Both House Legislative Analyses, HB 4530, June 8, 1999, and January 4, 2001, state that HB 4530 would "[p]rohibit a licensee from carrying a concealed weapon in certain public places, such as a school, theater, sports arena, library, or hospital." There is no mention in either bill analysis that an outdoor recreation park, by itself, would constitute a gun-free zone. It is appropriate to rely on the legislative history because of the ambiguity in the statutory language. Luttrell v Dep't of Corr, 421 Mich 93, 103; 365 NW2d 74 (1985).
As I understand the above, weather it's accurate or true or not, a simple sign is all that is needed to designate it as an "entertainment facility".

Now, technically the signs are to the right or left of the entrance, not above, so mebe that's my loophole! :D
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
imported post

SpringerXDacp wrote:
Venator wrote:
SNIP
I don't get it. Entertainment facility (EF)is NOT mentioned in .234d, so OC is covered by preemption. If it is in regards to the concealed carry statute, OC is legal with or without a CPL. According to the AG opinion the zoo would not be considered an EF.
I know that now...again that is. If 234d did not list sports arena, it would be easier for me to remember.

IIRC, preemption was the question mark on the subject over at MGO. That, and who actually owns/maintains the Zoo was also questioned. I found it to be somewhat similar to the Metro Parks debate, only worse.
Well, I did find that the Detroit Zoo is owned by the Detroit Zoological Society, which is a "Domestic Non-Profit Corporation so the question of state preemption is really not applicable; they are not a governmental entity.

http://www.dleg.state.mi.us/bcs_corp/dt_corp.asp?id_nbr=710038&name_entity=THE%20DETROIT%20ZOOLOGICAL%20SOCIETY

Therefore, although I am not an attorney and this is just my opinion, it appears THEY CAN prohibit firearms as they see fit, the same as any other business. IMHO, if they say "No Firearms" then it appears that firearms are not allowed.
 

SpringerXDacp

New member
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
3,341
Location
Burton, Michigan
imported post

DrTodd wrote:
SpringerXDacp wrote:
Venator wrote:
SNIP
I don't get it. Entertainment facility (EF)is NOT mentioned in .234d, so OC is covered by preemption. If it is in regards to the concealed carry statute, OC is legal with or without a CPL. According to the AG opinion the zoo would not be considered an EF.
I know that now...again that is. If 234d did not list sports arena, it would be easier for me to remember.

IIRC, preemption was the question mark on the subject over at MGO. That, and who actually owns/maintains the Zoo was also questioned. I found it to be somewhat similar to the Metro Parks debate, only worse.
Well, I did find that the Detroit Zoo is owned by the Detroit Zoological Society, which is a "Domestic Non-Profit Corporation so the question of state preemption is really not applicable; they are not a governmental entity.

http://www.dleg.state.mi.us/bcs_corp/dt_corp.asp?id_nbr=710038&name_entity=THE%20DETROIT%20ZOOLOGICAL%20SOCIETY

Therefore, although I am not an attorney and this is just my opinion, it appears THEY CAN prohibit firearms as they see fit, the same as any other business. IMHO, if they say "No Firearms" then it appears that firearms are not allowed.

Thank you for finding that Dr Todd.

Here's a Detroit Blog about the Zoo where Detroit residents question ownership (City of DZS):

http://detroit.about.com/b/2008/08/05/want-to-celebrate-the-detroit-zoos-80th-birthday-gift-it-a-future.htm
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
imported post

Interesting article. My guess is that the city has an agreement w/ the DZS which lets them operate it... if that's the case then they could still ban firearms, much like a business renting space in a mall. As city governments start to privatize services, perhaps there eventually will be buildings that can enforce a firearms ban even though they APPEAR to be a part of the local government. Legally the most they could probably do is ask you to leave.

Say a PD rents space from a property owner; the owner could conceivably prohibit firearms for anyone but the officers.
 

zigziggityzoo

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
1,543
Location
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
imported post

DrTodd wrote:
Say a PD rents space from a property owner; the owner could conceivably prohibit firearms for anyone but the officers.

I don't think this is true.

For instance, the Fed rents part of an airport for office space for TSA. That portion of the airport is Federal property, and is preempted.

Why wouldn't it also work the other way around?
 

SpringerXDacp

New member
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
3,341
Location
Burton, Michigan
imported post

zigziggityzoo wrote:
DrTodd wrote:
Say a PD rents space from a property owner; the owner could conceivably prohibit firearms for anyone but the officers.

I don't think this is true.

For instance, the Fed rents part of an airport for office space for TSA. That portion of the airport is Federal property, and is preempted.

Why wouldn't it also work the other way around?

Federal property is not subject to preemption. If you rented a building downtown Ann Arbor to establish a business, you have the right to prohibit firearms in your business if you chose to do so.
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
imported post

zigziggityzoo wrote:
DrTodd wrote:
Say a PD rents space from a property owner; the owner could conceivably prohibit firearms for anyone but the officers.

I don't think this is true.

For instance, the Fed rents part of an airport for office space for TSA. That portion of the airport is Federal property, and is preempted.

Why wouldn't it also work the other way around?
Your example has nothing to do with private property rights... TSA= Federal Government; Airport=Local Gov't.

If I rent space in my mall to the SOS, I can still have anyone removed for carrying a firearm because the state preemption of local law in no way affects my prerogative as a property owner to remove a person from my property. However, if I do this indiscriminately, I may be faced with the loss of my tenant and/or legal ramifications


Airports are usually owned and operated by a local governmental unit. For example, GR Ford in Grand Rapids is run by the Kent County Aeronautical Board, a part of the county administration and covered by preemption. As you stated, TSA is Federal Gov't and they could prohibit anywhere in their legal jurisdiction as determined by federal law;currently they don't. The rules for the sterile portion are a part of Federal Law but not as a part of TSA rules. The Feds do (in the USC) prohibit firearms in a sterile area of the airport, as does the State of Michigan. So your example really wouldn't apply because currently the feds generally limit their jurisdiction in an airport to the sterile portion (and offices and any other places covered specifically under Federal law). Outside of the sterile area and federal facilities, Michigan law is in effect. Some states, FL for example, do prohibit firearms in all areas of an airport. If Michigan decided to do this too, they would not be prohibited to do so by preemption since they are the ones who are exercising preemption.

Since my answer regrding the zoo referenced the rights of private property owners and your counterexample referenced jurisdictional issues between two governmental entities, my reasoning still holds. The whole issue between the Feds and the state would not be applicable here... unless the Feds rent space at the zoo or the zoo uses federal property.
 

zigziggityzoo

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
1,543
Location
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
imported post

SpringerXDacp wrote:
zigziggityzoo wrote:
DrTodd wrote:
Say a PD rents space from a property owner; the owner could conceivably prohibit firearms for anyone but the officers.

I don't think this is true.

For instance, the Fed rents part of an airport for office space for TSA. That portion of the airport is Federal property, and is preempted.

Why wouldn't it also work the other way around?

Federal property is not subject to preemption.  If you rented a building downtown Ann Arbor to establish a business, you have the right to prohibit firearms in your business if you chose to do so.

What I'm saying is that if Gov't rents property, the landlord cannot prohibit carry.

Tenant overrides, they rent the space.

And To the other guy: Not all airports are public.
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
imported post

Once again, your point is not applicable. Your example does not concern private property. Please show me where in the law that, barring exigent circumstances or "legal process", I have to allow ANYONE with firearms on MY property and I will agree with you. By signing a contract with a governmental entity who does have law enforcement powers though, I would probably be seen as an idiot if I thought that these LE officers do NOT have firearms on their person.

Please cite any relevant legal document or court case where private property rights are usurped by general police powers without a warrant, court order, licensing regulation, or other 'legal process" and I will acknowledge that you are right.

But I digress... what does this have to do with the issue at the zoo???
 

eastmeyers

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
1,363
Location
Hazel Park, Michigan, USA
imported post

FYI, just a quick comment, the Detroit Zoo, is VERY ANTI-FIREARM. Not even their head of security can carry on-site, or their contracted security (witch is mostly off-duty LEO's) are allowed to carry on-site.

I am not saying don't do it anyone, just that you are more than likely going to run into some Huntington Woods/Royal Oak LEOs.
 

Bronson

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
2,126
Location
Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
imported post

DrTodd wrote:
A while back I posted that there was a movie theater in the City of Wyoming that attempted to prohibit concealed carry by posting a seating capacity of 2500 on each of their entrances. Many people seemed to disagree with my opinion that they could do this even if the seating capacity was much less. IMHO, a previous writer is correct that, at least as far as the law is concerned, by posting the signage on an entrance, concealed carry would be prohibited; even if the actual capacity was less than the 2500. It seams that it was a "round about" way to get cpl holders to forgo CCing their firearms.

Celebration Cinemas in Kalamazoo has done this. I asked them what their total seating capacity was and they added it up and it came in under 2500. A few weeks later they had the "2500+" signs up at the entrance.

My question is doesn't it violate fire code to post a false (especially high) seating capacity?

My friend the ex movie theater manager told me a theater can get in trouble with their distributors as what the theater pays for getting the movie is based partly on seating capacity and if the posted and the actual don't jive they can be penalized by the film distributors. I'll check with him on that to make sure I have it correct.

Bronson
 

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,928
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
imported post

eastmeyers wrote:
FYI, just a quick comment, the Detroit Zoo, is VERY ANTI-FIREARM. Not even their head of security can carry on-site, or their contracted security (witch is mostly off-duty LEO's) are allowed to carry on-site.

I am not saying don't do it anyone, just that you are more than likely going to run into some Huntington Woods/Royal Oak LEOs.

You seem to be putting it out there thatyou have someknowledge or experience about thehandling oflawful OC by the zoo/zoo security and the LE agencies you mention.Details on that knowledge or experiencewould be helpful.
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
imported post

FatboyCykes wrote:
Venator wrote:
FatboyCykes wrote:
DrTodd wrote:
Venator,

You are correct, OC appears to be legal.
With, and only with a CPL though.
How is it illegal?
Per the AG opinion posted...

A reading of all the words contained in section 5o(1)(f) of the Act supports the conclusion that the Legislature intended that the term "entertainment facility" constitute a structure or building that has a known seating capacity of 2,500 or more persons, or that has signs above each public entrance stating that the facility has a seating capacity of 2,500 or more persons. Since the Legislature has not required that an entertainment facility be totally self-enclosed, such a facility could consist of a bandshell, amphitheater, or similar structure, provided it has the required, known seating capacity noted above or has appropriate signage above each public entrance indicating a seating capacity of 2,500 or more. This reading of section 5o(1)(f) is supported by the legislative history of 2000 HB 4530, enacted as 2000 PA 231. Both House Legislative Analyses, HB 4530, June 8, 1999, and January 4, 2001, state that HB 4530 would "[p]rohibit a licensee from carrying a concealed weapon in certain public places, such as a school, theater, sports arena, library, or hospital." There is no mention in either bill analysis that an outdoor recreation park, by itself, would constitute a gun-free zone. It is appropriate to rely on the legislative history because of the ambiguity in the statutory language. Luttrell v Dep't of Corr, 421 Mich 93, 103; 365 NW2d 74 (1985).
As I understand the above, weather it's accurate or true or not, a simple sign is all that is needed to designate it as an "entertainment facility".

Now, technically the signs are to the right or left of the entrance, not above, so mebe that's my loophole! :D
The sign is valid only if they meet the criteria, otherwise every place could post a sign saying it's an entertainment facility to shirt the law. The way I read it is if there is a entertainment facility within the zoo, like an stage or lecture hall that seat 2500 then that area would qualify, but not the entire zoo. Regardless this only applies to CONCEALED CARRY, not open.
 
Top