• 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.

Arts Beats and Eats

scot623

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
1,421
Location
Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
Below is what I don't understand regarding the city's position.

Given: under preemption, the city doesn't have the privilege to restrict firearms carry in the city streets.

Given the above, how does this privilege manifest itself through the magic of words on paper via a contract with a third party? Imo, the city cannot delegate away a privilege they never had, no matter the size of the paycheck.

It is their contention, the liquor license and the seating capacity of the festival meet the standards set forth under 234d and 425o. Therefore they are not restricting firearms and more so than the state already does. At least that's their story and their sticking to it.
 

fozzy71

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
921
Location
Roseville, Michigan, USA
It is their contention, the liquor license and the seating capacity of the festival meet the standards set forth under 234d and 425o. .....

sisko-facepalm.jpg
 

jm62383

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
43
Location
White Cloud, MI
I don't know about how this would work, but has anyone emailed the oak park branch of the MSP and heard thier thoughts on the matter? Im sure if the MSP gives an official statement the city would back right on down.
 

lapeer20m

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
928
Location
Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
It is their contention, the liquor license and the seating capacity of the festival meet the standards set forth under 234d and 425o. Therefore they are not restricting firearms and more so than the state already does. At least that's their story and their sticking to it.

obviously, even if they did have the right to restrict because of seating capacity/alcohol, this would not affect cpl oc.

However, i believe that they cannot make the entire festival a bar or tavern, or even an establishment registered with the LCC due to the fact that only adults would be allowed into the festival.....and streets are not establishments, neither are they a bar or tavern. Seating capacity has already been addressed by an AG opinion. Royal Oak and ABE haven't a leg to stand on.
 

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
I have spoken with Jon Witz, President of ABE Inc. He was respectful during the conversation, even though we disagreed on various discussion points. While I understand his concerns and told him so, I reiterated that the rule of law and rights of persons must prevail, they are not up for debate. I firmly stated that my fundamental right of self-defense goes anywhere I am lawfully allowed (with known exceptions).

His points, for the most part, were based upon "intents" of the MI Legislature and that the "seating capacity issue for PFZ's" should expand to the entire festival as "firearms should not be present in large crowds due to safety issues". We have already answered this issue with MI Attorney General Opinion #7120. It is now up to the Royal Oak City Attorney and ABE Attorneys to review the information provided and act accordingly. I will give them a few days to do so.

Extra: The "handshake agreement" for MOC Inc to have a table within the ABE Festival Grounds, in exchange for No Open Carry and not continuing to push the issue, was again proposed by Mr Jon Witz. This table was stated to be in a "prominent location" within the ABE Festival Grounds, with a value of $2500 per day for 4 days. I conveyed that I was not able to speak for nor direct anyone else and that I would pass the message along, which I have sent to the MOC Board. My bottom dollar says the answer to that would be a resounding NO!.
 

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
FYI - Additional Information Request #1

David Gillam, Royal Oak City Attorney
Don Johnson, Royal Oak City Manager

Mr David Gillam,
Mr Don Johnson,

In the Festival Agreement between The City Of Royal Oak (The City), The Downtown Development Authority (DDA), and Arts, Beats, and Eats Inc (ABE), ABE is granted exclusive use of Public Property (IE: Public Streets and Public Sidewalks) in Section 4, Item a. Please provide answers to the following by no later than 5:00 PM on July, 23rd 2010.

1. Does the ABE Special Event Permit, as outlined in Royal Oak City Ordinance 312 and ABE Contract Section 4 Item a, grant Private Property Rights to Public Property (IE: Public Streets and Public Sidewalks)?

Sincerely,

PDinDetroit

cc:
Mike Cox, Michigan Attorney General
Michael Bouchard, Oakland County Sheriff
Jessica R. Cooper, Oakland County Prosecutor
 

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
FYI - Additional Information Request #2

David Gillam, Royal Oak City Attorney
Don Johnson, Royal Oak City Manager

Mr David Gillam,
Mr Don Johnson,

In the Festival Agreement between The City Of Royal Oak (The City), The Downtown Development Authority (DDA), and Arts, Beats, and Eats Inc (ABE), ABE is guaranteed by the City and/or DDA that their Liquor License in Section 4, Item i will be approved for the entire ABE Festival Grounds, which includes Public Property over a Multi-Block City Area (IE: Public Streets and Public Sidewalks). I can find no proceedings on the City Of Royal Oak Website, either by the City Of Royal Oak Liquor Control Committee nor by the City Of Royal Oak City Commission, where the ABE Liquor License has been presented and approved. Please provide the following by no later than 5:00 PM on July, 23rd 2010.

1. A copy of the ABE Liquor License, with proof of presentation and approval in Committee and/or Commission Minutes of the City of Royal Oak.

Sincerely,

PDinDetroit

cc:
Mike Cox, Michigan Attorney General
Michael Bouchard, Oakland County Sheriff
Jessica R. Cooper, Oakland County Prosecutor
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
It is their contention, the liquor license and the seating capacity of the festival meet the standards set forth under 234d and 425o. Therefore they are not restricting firearms and more so than the state already does. At least that's their story and their sticking to it.

What we are witnessing with AB&E is something is suspect we will be seeing a lot more of in the next couple of decades.... namely Leftist elitist weenies behaving like cornered rats and grasping at straws while snarling and snapping at "thoooose common people" who dare to put them in their place.

I personally am not involved in this particular fight for freedom with AB&E but to those who are..... I applaud you all! And..........

Go get 'em! Hold them accountable! Make them obey the law just like us "common people" have to.
 

johnniebravo

Regular Member
Joined
May 9, 2009
Messages
49
Location
Warren Michigan, ,
And if there is no resolution to their lack of understanding the law what says someone shows up at the entry point and is denied access to the festival because they are OC'ing? what than?
 

scot623

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
1,421
Location
Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
The person who is denied entry as some choices to make.
1. Go home, do nothing
2. Go home, file complaint(to whom, I'm not sure...AG?)
3. Refuse to leave, get arrested.
4. If arrested, do nothing but fight the charge.
5. If arrested, fight charge and SUE AB&E, Royal Oak and Royal Oak PD
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
Everyone with a CPL should CC in through the entrance and perhaps have these people with a CPL CC the pistol in of those who do not have a CPL. Then, when inside discretely change over to OC. With a number of people walking throughout the event, what are they going to do: arrest people and remove them? Escort them physically from the premises for doing something that is not only "legal" but is a BASIC right? If the number of people attending is similar to what the pictures at the website show during past events, it would be nearly impossible for the city and ABE to control the situation. Although it would not effect CPL holders open carrying, it is disingenuous to claim that the whole event is a Licensed establishment yet not ban children under 18 without their parents. I would monitor that those under 18 are removed from the event. If it is deemed an entertainment facility, I would take pictures and video showing that the event is not contained within a building/ structure.

What I think is going to happen is that the commission realizes that they are wrong but go ahead and state that firearms are prohibited. People who are charged with security, though, will most likely not remove people from the premises. They will just hope that not many people with firearms show up.
 

scot623

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
1,421
Location
Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
Everyone with a CPL should CC in through the entrance and perhaps have these people with a CPL CC the pistol in of those who do not have a CPL. Then, when inside discretely change over to OC.
As a member of Michigan Open Carry Inc., I can not in good conscience condone that course of action. Any time a citizen feels he needs to "sneak" his/her legal firearm past security, we have failed. I will always work to go through "the front door" and not sneak in "through the back".
 
Last edited:

johnniebravo

Regular Member
Joined
May 9, 2009
Messages
49
Location
Warren Michigan, ,
As a member of Michigan Open Carry Inc., I can not in good conscience condone that course of action. Any time a citizen feels he needs to "sneak" his/her legal firearm past security, we have failed. I will always work to go through "the front door" and not sneak in "through the back".

Thats my thought exactly, why should I have to behave like I'm doing something wrong when in fact I'm the one who is right?
 

eastmeyers

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
1,363
Location
Hazel Park, Michigan, USA
What I think is going to happen is that the commission realizes that they are wrong but go ahead and state that firearms are prohibited. People who are charged with security, though, will most likely not remove people from the premises. They will just hope that not many people with firearms show up.

I'm glad I am not the only one with this view, as I previously stated. Again this is only my opinion (well Dr. Todd's too), but this seems most likely to me.

What is the course of action then?
 
Last edited:

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
Thats my thought exactly, why should I have to behave like I'm doing something wrong when in fact I'm the one who is right?

That sounds like a serious indictment on anyone who chooses to CC at any time. If I AM openly carrying a firearm IN the ABE event, am I at that point behaving "like I am doing something wrong" or does that negate your assumptions regarding my behavior?

I truly do understand your point BUT the choice is yours and we are all adults... just carry it openly through the gate then. This to me is analogous to informing a store that you are coming in to their store w/ a firearm. Do you call a store anytime you are going to OC at a store sometime during the day? Or, do you stop and find a manager to find out if OC is OK before you start shopping? I believe I have valid "legal" reasons that it would be wise for some to actually have the firearms on their person IN the event, not just at the entrance. I will not divulge those reasons here but if anyone is dying to know what my reasoning is, feel free to PM me. I will, though, only answer PM's regarding this from those I am sure are truly not representatives of either the city or ABE as I don't need to be giving them ammo for their side.

Again, although I understand the concerns you have with entering the event with an unseen firearm, your suggestion that by CCing ANYTIME I choose I am somehow "sneaking" and doing something immoral sounds a lot like those in the CC community who imply that OCing a pistol is somehow "dirty" and "immoral". Attaching a negative connotation to ANY form of carry is detrimental to all people who carry firearms.
 

dougwg

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
2,443
Location
MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
That sounds like a serious indictment on anyone who chooses to CC at any time. If I AM openly carrying a firearm IN the ABE event, am I at that point behaving "like I am doing something wrong" or does that negate your assumptions regarding my behavior?

I truly do understand your point BUT the choice is yours and we are all adults... just carry it openly through the gate then. This to me is analogous to informing a store that you are coming in to their store w/ a firearm. Do you call a store anytime you are going to OC at a store sometime during the day? Or, do you stop and find a manager to find out if OC is OK before you start shopping? I believe I have valid "legal" reasons that it would be wise for some to actually have the firearms on their person IN the event, not just at the entrance. I will not divulge those reasons here but if anyone is dying to know what my reasoning is, feel free to PM me. I will, though, only answer PM's regarding this from those I am sure are truly not representatives of either the city or ABE as I don't need to be giving them ammo for their side.

Again, although I understand the concerns you have with entering the event with an unseen firearm, your suggestion that by CCing ANYTIME I choose I am somehow "sneaking" and doing something immoral sounds a lot like those in the CC community who imply that OCing a pistol is somehow "dirty" and "immoral". Attaching a negative connotation to ANY form of carry is detrimental to all people who carry firearms.
More points of view, love it!
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
As a member of Michigan Open Carry Inc., I can not in good conscience condone that course of action. Any time a citizen feels he needs to "sneak" his/her legal firearm past security, we have failed. I will always work to go through "the front door" and not sneak in "through the back".

Why bring MOC into it? Did I? Is this a discussion that has taken place among MOC members with some resolution attested to by the MOC membership in general? If so, I would like to know this for my consideration.

I just read a thread where the issue of choosing to CC and OC was discussed. Both people said that if they don't want to be hassled they choose to CC (both have a cpl) As a member of MOC, would you condone this attempt to "sneak" past others?
 

sprinklerguy28

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
666
Location
Michigan
As a member of Michigan Open Carry Inc., I can not in good conscience condone that course of action. Any time a citizen feels he needs to "sneak" his/her legal firearm past security, we have failed. I will always work to go through "the front door" and not sneak in "through the back".

I agree 100%. It would be against everything everyone has been fighting for. A time has never been more appropriate to remember our statement of ""Nothing to Hide".
 

scot623

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
1,421
Location
Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
Why bring MOC into it? Did I? Is this a discussion that has taken place among MOC members with some resolution attested to by the MOC membership in general? If so, I would like to know this for my consideration.

I just read a thread where the issue of choosing to CC and OC was discussed. Both people said that if they don't want to be hassled they choose to CC (both have a cpl) As a member of MOC, would you condone this attempt to "sneak" past others?

First of all, I brought MOC into this because I am a member of MOC and as such I was giving my opinion. I have a CPL and I do CC when I see fit. I never feel like I am sneaking around when I CC. What I didn't condone was the suggestion to CC into a place to then OC after past a known checkpoint. If you want to OC, then OC. If you want to CC then CC. I am very cool with either carry method.
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
First of all, I brought MOC into this because I am a member of MOC and as such I was giving my opinion. I have a CPL and I do CC when I see fit. I never feel like I am sneaking around when I CC. What I didn't condone was the suggestion to CC into a place to then OC after past a known checkpoint. If you want to OC, then OC. If you want to CC then CC. I am very cool with either carry method.
Just trying to understand your logic: so once I enter a place CC, I MUST stay CC while there?
So, your opinion appears to be that if we are denied entrance that this furthers the cause to such a degree that anything else is worthy of condemnation. Hmm. Interesting.

Personally, if I knew that some people were already inside and OCing, no matter how they legally entered the event, I would probably OC through the admission area. My point is, there is a legal reason that I think it wise to have a number of people OCing inside the event.
If the only way we can OC at the ABE event is to CC in and then switch to OC, then I think that in this instance, that action is justifiable.
I don't carry my firearm to make statements, I carry it to afford my protection to myself, the ones I love, and those to whom I chose to protect.
 
Top