Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Muskegon Summer Celebration

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    144

    Post imported post

    So here's a topic for discussion ... apparently the organizers of Muskegon's Summer Celebration have declared their venues "gun free":

    http://www.summercelebration.com/festival-rules

    Their justification seems to be that for the purposes of the festival, they've created a PFZ because the capacity of the venue is over 2,500.

    What are your thoughts on the legality of this?

    1) Can a city temporarily define a public park as an "entertainment venue" and thus turn it into a PFZ? Would this be covered by preemption?

    2) Even if you assume that the answer to #1) is "yes" ... I assume that one could still legally Open Carry there with a CPL, correct? Could they get around this by saying it's temporarily become private property (i.e. rented out to festival organizers ... whomever they happen to be)?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    228

    Post imported post

    CrimDoc wrote:
    Can a city temporarily define a public park as an "entertainment venue" and thus turn it into a PFZ?* Would this be covered by preemption?
    if someone rented out the space and paid for insurance, it would be like private property.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416

    Post imported post

    CrimDoc wrote:
    So here's a topic for discussion ... apparently the organizers of Muskegon's Summer Celebration have declared their venues "gun free":

    http://www.summercelebration.com/festival-rules

    Their justification seems to be that for the purposes of the festival, they've created a PFZ because the capacity of the venue is over 2,500.

    What are your thoughts on the legality of this?

    1) Can a city temporarily define a public park as an "entertainment venue" and thus turn it into a PFZ? Would this be covered by preemption?

    2) Even if you assume that the answer to #1) is "yes" ... I assume that one could still legally Open Carry there with a CPL, correct? Could they get around this by saying it's temporarily become private property (i.e. rented out to festival organizers ... whomever they happen to be)?
    There are a lot of problems with their "rules".

    On your first question, Where does state law allow a city to make a temporary PFZ. Besides, they are claiming that the reason for the PFZ is because the capacity is over 2,500, when no such law exists. MCL 28.425o specifically states that it is the "seating capacity" that must be over 2,500.

    On 2), that may be for the courts to decide however, that may be sketchy since it looks like the city created for this sole purpose. Can Grand Rapids forbid people from carrying on city streets just because they are temporary blocked off for some festival or the other. Can Grand Haven do so during the Coast Guard Festival? Can Holland do so during the Tulip Festival? I highly doubt it because by doing so they are violating 123.1102.

    Another problem with their "rules" is that they claim all attendees are subject to search without warning. I suppose that's true of anyone anywhere as long as the have PC to do the search, but this implies that they may do so without PC.

    They also do not allow video recorders (no wonder since there are so many planned rights violations). Do the plan to turn away everyone with a cell phone or Ipod?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416

    Post imported post

    Another thing to consider is this.

    How long before someone who knows their rights decides to not be searched, and has the means to resist such an unlawful search.

    Police are protected during the unlawful course of their duties, not the unlawful course of their duties.

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%2...20AND%20arrest



  5. #5
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336

    Post imported post

    ElectricianLU58 wrote:
    CrimDoc wrote:
    Can a city temporarily define a public park as an "entertainment venue" and thus turn it into a PFZ? Would this be covered by preemption?
    if someone rented out the space and paid for insurance, it would be like private property.
    First of all - IANAL!

    It would be good to have a copy of the agreement between Muskegon City/County and the Muskegon Summer Celebration Corp (MSC). This will help delineate which party required the No Firearms Rule and if the grounds are leased or not.

    The definition of "Entertainment Facility" is important, along with how the MSC has structured the entertainment site. I have not been able to find a specific definition in the MCL, but item 4b in the following link probably provides a good enough definition for discussion purposes (emphasis mine).

    something (as a hospital) that is built, installed, or established to serve a particular purpose
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/facility

    From the MSC website, they describe the Summer Celebration Grounds as Heritage Landing with other sub-sites within the Summer Celebration Grounds, such as the Main Stage (where the supposed 2500 seating exists). This is key, as I believe the Main Stage would be the only Entertainment Facility to which MCL 28.425o would apply and not the entire Summer Celebration Grounds (due to serving a specific purpose). We also know that with a CPL, one could Open Carry at the Main Stage.

    So, my take is that this "no firearms" rule may not be enforceable without further information.
    Rights are like muscles. You must EXERCISE THEM to keep them from becoming atrophied.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Muskegon (Cloverville), Michigan, USA
    Posts
    37

    Post imported post

    IF I attended Muskegon Summer Celebration, which I wont, in this case I would CC, I refuse to be a victim! This is one of the benefits of having a CPL, it gives the carrier options.



  7. #7
    Regular Member kyleplusitunes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lennon Michigan, ,
    Posts
    533

    Post imported post

    BlueStarDad wrote:
    IF I attended Muskegon Summer Celebration, which I wont, in this case I would CC, I refuse to be a victim! This is one of the benefits of having a CPL, it gives the carrier options.

    *
    You're confusing being a victim of a crime with someone who has their rights knowingly violated. Being a victim of a crime is one thing, but having your rights trampled on knowingly by any law enforcement agency is another thing.

    If this festival only forbids firearms in their rules, and does (hypothetically) have private property rights, the only thing they could do is ask you to leave.

    You should NEVER be afraid to open carry where it is legal and lawful, once you start hiding your gun in certain situations, it leaves you open to arguments like "Why don;'t you just conceal it all the time then?"

    You could be a "victim" as you put it here, or in a gas station with an LEO on a power trip, if you are unprepared to defend your rights against tyranny in all cases, maybe you shouldn't be doing it at all. Think about your goals.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    129

    Post imported post

    BlueStarDad wrote:
    IF I attended Muskegon Summer Celebration, which I wont, in this case I would CC, I refuse to be a victim! This is one of the benefits of having a CPL, it gives the carrier options.

    That is all good but if you go to the stage with your gun concealed and there is seating for 2500 you could be charged with a weapons violation.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    129

    Post imported post

    PDinDetroit wrote:
    ElectricianLU58 wrote:
    CrimDoc wrote:
    Can a city temporarily define a public park as an "entertainment venue" and thus turn it into a PFZ? Would this be covered by preemption?
    if someone rented out the space and paid for insurance, it would be like private property.
    First of all - IANAL!

    It would be good to have a copy of the agreement between Muskegon City/County and the Muskegon Summer Celebration Corp (MSC). This will help delineate which party required the No Firearms Rule and if the grounds are leased or not.

    The definition of "Entertainment Facility" is important, along with how the MSC has structured the entertainment site. I have not been able to find a specific definition in the MCL, but item 4b in the following link probably provides a good enough definition for discussion purposes (emphasis mine).

    something (as a hospital) that is built, installed, or established to serve a particular purpose
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/facility

    From the MSC website, they describe the Summer Celebration Grounds as Heritage Landing with other sub-sites within the Summer Celebration Grounds, such as the Main Stage (where the supposed 2500 seating exists). This is key, as I believe the Main Stage would be the only Entertainment Facility to which MCL 28.425o would apply and not the entire Summer Celebration Grounds (due to serving a specific purpose). We also know that with a CPL, one could Open Carry at the Main Stage.

    So, my take is that this "no firearms" rule may not be enforceable without further information.
    I believe the Granholm opinion #7120 would apply here.

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

    Post imported post

    maustin195 wrote:
    PDinDetroit wrote:
    ElectricianLU58 wrote:
    CrimDoc wrote:
    Can a city temporarily define a public park as an "entertainment venue" and thus turn it into a PFZ? Would this be covered by preemption?
    if someone rented out the space and paid for insurance, it would be like private property.
    First of all - IANAL!

    It would be good to have a copy of the agreement between Muskegon City/County and the Muskegon Summer Celebration Corp (MSC). This will help delineate which party required the No Firearms Rule and if the grounds are leased or not.

    The definition of "Entertainment Facility" is important, along with how the MSC has structured the entertainment site. I have not been able to find a specific definition in the MCL, but item 4b in the following link probably provides a good enough definition for discussion purposes (emphasis mine).

    something (as a hospital) that is built, installed, or established to serve a particular purpose
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/facility

    From the MSC website, they describe the Summer Celebration Grounds as Heritage Landing with other sub-sites within the Summer Celebration Grounds, such as the Main Stage (where the supposed 2500 seating exists). This is key, as I believe the Main Stage would be the only Entertainment Facility to which MCL 28.425o would apply and not the entire Summer Celebration Grounds (due to serving a specific purpose). We also know that with a CPL, one could Open Carry at the Main Stage.

    So, my take is that this "no firearms" rule may not be enforceable without further information.
    I believe the Granholm opinion #7120 would apply here.
    Why YES, it does!

    http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/a...0ParkCarry.pdf

    While the Legislature could certainly have included municipal and other outdoor recreation parks within the Act's list of gun-free zones, it chose not to do so. An entertainment facility having a seating capacity of 2,500 or more persons clearly refers to a building or other structure. Accordingly, if an outdoor recreation park includes a band shell, amphitheater, or similar structure that has the required seating capacity, that portion of the park would constitute a gun-free zone under section 5o(f) of the Act.

    Finally, section 5o of the Act is a penal statute that must be strictly construed unless the Legislature indicates otherwise. MCL 750.2; People v Gilbert, 414 Mich 191, 211; 324 NW2d 834 (1982). There is nothing in the Concealed Pistol Licensing Act or in its legislative history to suggest that this statute be construed in a manner different from the plain language adopted by the Legislature.

    It is my opinion, therefore, that a municipal outdoor recreation park does not, by itself, constitute an "entertainment facility" within the meaning of section 5o(1)(f) of the Concealed Pistol Licensing Act, and thus is not a gun-free zone as established by that statute.

    JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM
    Attorney General
    That should do it! Now, someone needs to take this to MSC/Muskegon City/County.

    BTW - this may help for the discussion with Royal Oak for the Arts, Beats, and Eats Festival.
    Rights are like muscles. You must EXERCISE THEM to keep them from becoming atrophied.

  11. #11
    Regular Member dougwg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,445

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Pontiac, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    285

    Post imported post

    good job on that one

Posting Permissions

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