Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 117

Thread: Arts, Beats, and Eats Liquor License

  1. #1
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336

    Exclamation Arts, Beats, and Eats Liquor License

    Moved this topic to a new thread to ensure the information is not lost.

    The ABE Liquor License does indeed cover the ENTIRE FESTIVAL GROUNDS, as confirmed by Jon Witz, President of ABE Inc, and the Royal Oak Police Department. We have gotten word that the Liquor License Package has been reviewed and approved and is awaiting final approval by Linda Ellsworth of the MLCC.

    Due to MCL 750.234d, a person without a CPL will not be able the Open Carry at the ABE Festival. I know we have heard from the Royal Oak Police and the Oakland County Sheriff that they will not hassle anyone Open Carrying nor arrest anyone for violation of this law. I cannot, in good conscience, recommend that a person without a CPL Open Carry at the ABE Festival, nor transport a firearm encased to/from a residence/business within the Festival Grounds. I do believe that it is a RIGHTS VIOLATION and that action still needs to be taken.

    The following are the points that need to be addressed with the MLCC (Michigan Liquor Control Commission) for making the Entire Festival Grounds an Establishment under the MI Liquor Control Act:

    1. Allow Alcohol to be possessed and consumed on Public Streets/Sidewalks in Violation of Royal Oak City Ordinance 278-35 (Disorderly Conduct).

    2. Allow Minors Under 17 to be admitted to or remain in a place where alcohol is sold and consumed without Direct Parental Supervision (MCL 750.141). The fair is not being billed as an Adult Event/Venue.

    3. Allow NON-CPL Holders to be prohibited from possession, carry, and transport of firearms on Public Streets/Sidewalks for any lawful purpose according to MCL 750.234d (h). This does not just cover Open Carry for Non-CPL Holders, it includes lawful firearm transport to/from residences/businesses within the Festival Grounds. Any Non-CPL holder would AUTOMATICALLY be guilty of a MISDEMEANOR just by leaving their residence/business with an encased firearm.

    4. The violation of US Constitution 2nd Amendment and MI Constitution Article 1 Section 6 since the Festival Grounds encompass Public Streets/Sidewalks, Residences, and Businesses.


    I urge you to contact the MLCC, addressing these concerns to Linda Ellsworth (Licensing) and Nida Simona (MLCC Chairperson).

    MLCC Email: MLCCINFO2@michigan.gov

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,440
    I took offense to Jon Witz advocating on his AB&E website for people to write in and work to change firearm laws. I would prefer to change the laws so alcohol cannot legally be consumed on public streets and sidewalks! The fact this "fair" is causing lawful minors and non-cpl holders to lose rights on public streets and sidewalks needs to addressed. I've called the Attorney Generals office. I'll update if/when I am called back.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416
    Where did this come from that we can verify it?

  4. #4
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by ghostrider View Post
    Where did this come from that we can verify it?
    Confirmed by the ABE Contract, my discussions with Jon Witz, my discussions with the Royal Oak Police Chief at the Royal Oak LCC Meeting, and Scot623's discussions with the MLCC.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,440
    It came from me personally calling the Special Licensing division of the MLCC 517-322-1326. I have been in contact with MLCC on this issue multiple times over the past 3 weeks. Linda Elsworth has the file on her desk. She will be back in the office Tuesday when she will gather the info the committee requested, then issue final approval.

  6. #6
    Regular Member G22's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    74
    So in reality, regardless of whether it's enforced or not, only people with a CPL would be able to carry? and only openly?

    Is that correct? No CC?

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    IIRC If you are in violation of transportation under 231a, then its a felony.

    This is a clear violation of A2 rights.

  8. #8
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by G22 View Post
    So in reality, regardless of whether it's enforced or not, only people with a CPL would be able to carry? and only openly?

    Is that correct? No CC?
    Yes, since the entire Festival Grounds will be an Open Carry Alcohol Zone.

    Jon Witz confirmed that the majority of income is NOT from sales of alcohol by the glass, so CC is permitted.
    Last edited by PDinDetroit; 08-20-2010 at 02:11 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,440
    The festival DOES NOT RECEIVE IT'S PRIMARY SOURCE OF INCOME FROM ALCOHOL SALES. MCL 28.425o is not in play here. Jon Witz has said parking revenue is the largest portion of income. CONCEALED CARRY WITH CPL IS LAWFUL.

  10. #10
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    IIRC If you are in violation of transportation under 231a, then its a felony.

    This is a clear violation of A2 rights.
    I do not believe that it applies, only 750.234d (h) would apply which is a misdemeanor.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Why not? It is my opinion that lawful purpose is not an all inclusive list, although some LEOs do not share this opinion. One almost charged me with it a couple months ago, except that I was able to prove that I was transporting to my house from my parents house. This fell under, ..."(vii) While en route to or from his or her abode to a private property location where the pistol is to be used as is permitted by law, rule, regulation, or local ordinance."

    If I had not been in possession of the complete printed law, and allowed to read it back to the officer, I would have been charged.

    If you cannot legally posses the firearm ate ABE because of the alcohol loophole, then you would be in violation of 231a. There is no case law that I am aware of, although this AB&E thing could possibly produce one. If someone is charged under this, please do not take a plea deal, find a way to see it through.

  12. #12
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    Why not? It is my opinion that lawful purpose is not an all inclusive list, although some LEOs do not share this opinion. One almost charged me with it a couple months ago, except that I was able to prove that I was transporting to my house from my parents house. This fell under, ..."(vii) While en route to or from his or her abode to a private property location where the pistol is to be used as is permitted by law, rule, regulation, or local ordinance."

    If I had not been in possession of the complete printed law, and allowed to read it back to the officer, I would have been charged.

    If you cannot legally posses the firearm ate ABE because of the alcohol loophole, then you would be in violation of 231a. There is no case law that I am aware of, although this AB&E thing could possibly produce one. If someone is charged under this, please do not take a plea deal, find a way to see it through.
    Even if charged, I cannot see how it would stick since it is not an all-inclusive list. This has been discussed to death, please search or open a new thread on this topic. We need to keep this thread on track.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Rochester Hills, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    338
    The same venue (ABE festival) can not be classified one way for the purpose of enforcing gun laws and be classified the other way in respect to "no minors under 17 without adult where liquor is sold" law.

    If City, Police and ABE insists that the whole festival is one big facility licensed to sell alcohol, then they can not allow minors under 17 to enter festival. If they do, then this is not one big facility and non-CPL carriers should be allowed to OC.

    We need to insist that City, Police and ABE to clearly define how both situations will be enforced. Without unambiguous clarification, attending public will be put in legal jeopardy.

    Shall we attend next Royal Oak Commission Meeting and demand this to be clarified?

  14. #14
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by sasha601 View Post
    The same venue (ABE festival) can not be classified one way for the purpose of enforcing gun laws and be classified the other way in respect to "no minors under 17 without adult where liquor is sold" law.

    If City, Police and ABE insists that the whole festival is one big facility licensed to sell alcohol, then they can not allow minors under 17 to enter festival. If they do, then this is not one big facility and non-CPL carriers should be allowed to OC.

    We need to insist that City, Police and ABE to clearly define how both situations will be enforced. Without unambiguous clarification, attending public will be put in legal jeopardy.

    Shall we attend next Royal Oak Commission Meeting and demand this to be clarified?
    The nest Royal Oak City Commission Meeting will occur after the ABE Festival.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756
    Perhaps this is a silly question...

    If Royal Oak's festival assigned police have agreed not to enforce any laws what would preclude a State Police officer wandering around the festival from arresting OC'ers without CPL in a licensed liquor "establishment"?

    Possible trap there?

    Another "trap" to consider.... this one public relations...

    Much effort was expended by people OC'ing to get Royal Oak to abide by the law. Now along comes folks illegally OC'ing (not obeying the law) just because the police promised not to enforce the law.

    Regardless of if the police promised not to enforce any violations.... violations are still violations... and rest assured a big stink will be made of the hypocrisy of OC inherent in all that.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Quote Originally Posted by PDinDetroit View Post
    Even if charged, I cannot see how it would stick since it is not an all-inclusive list. This has been discussed to death, please search or open a new thread on this topic. We need to keep this thread on track.
    Its not off topic in any way, this could be a real threat to someone. I know this has been discussed ad nauseum, I was one on the main participants. We know that its not an all inclusive list, but without a case law, a person may find themselves charged. Although I would love to see this brought to a case law, I would hate to see anyone go through the time, expense, and misery of getting it there.

  17. #17
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    Perhaps this is a silly question...

    If Royal Oak's festival assigned police have agreed not to enforce any laws what would preclude a State Police officer wandering around the festival from arresting OC'ers without CPL in a licensed liquor "establishment"?

    Possible trap there?

    Another "trap" to consider.... this one public relations...

    Much effort was expended by people OC'ing to get Royal Oak to abide by the law. Now along comes folks illegally OC'ing (not obeying the law) just because the police promised not to enforce the law.

    Regardless of if the police promised not to enforce any violations.... violations are still violations... and rest assured a big stink will be made of the hypocrisy of OC inherent in all that.
    I would imagine that there is no guarantee against arrest and/or prosecution for a law on the books.

  18. #18
    Regular Member eastmeyers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hazel Park, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,383
    Quote Originally Posted by PDinDetroit View Post
    I would imagine that there is no guarantee against arrest and/or prosecution for a law on the books.
    Sure their is 123.1102, this is public property and they cannot do anything to legally restrict firearms Right
    "Bam, I like saying bam when I cite something, in fact I think I shall do this from here on out, as long as I remember.
    Bam!" - eastmeyers

    "Then said he to them, But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his sack: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
    Luke 22:36
    God Bless

  19. #19
    Regular Member Taurus850CIA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,071
    Quote Originally Posted by PDinDetroit View Post
    The ABE Liquor License does indeed cover the ENTIRE FESTIVAL GROUNDS, as confirmed by Jon Witz, President of ABE Inc, and the Royal Oak Police Department. We have gotten word that the Liquor License Package has been reviewed and approved and is awaiting final approval by Linda Ellsworth of the MLCC.
    Sneaky sonsofbiscuits.... I was afraid of that.
    "Fault always lies in the same place, my fine babies: with him weak enough to lay blame." - Cort

    Gun control is like trying to reduce Drunk Driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.

    Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare.

    The answer to "1984" is "
    1776"

    With freedom comes much responsibility. It is for this reason so many are loathe to exercise it.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    56
    Time for another council meeting? Find out if RO is going to stand up to their "Disorderly Conduct" Statute?

    I for one don't want a bunch of drunks walking the streets while my kids are trying to have a good time. I mean, My God! Just think of those 300lb Hillbilly's stumbling around. For God sakes people, one of them could fall over and crush my little "Johnny". This is an outrage! Stupid people with no common sense, If you want to guzzle your beer fine...Do it at home! Don't ruin it for the rest of use bringing down your 6 packs, spilling your drinks on my kids, driving home drunk...What if my little "Johnny" finds one of your half empty drinks sitting around? Then what? Or you could run my little "Johnny" down while you are intoxicated behind the wheel. I am M.A.D.D about this....It is Chilling to me! my family and others knowing these misfits will be at the AB&E. I for one will not attend if I know these drunks will be down there drinking the devils blood!

    I just can't believe that the city will allow these drunk'n fools come to town and ruin it for the rest of us, Those rowdy drunks will come from other towns like Eastpointe, Shelby etc and try to force their drunkeness on our town. How dare they! If this bunch of Misfits want to drink and get drunk, GO TO IRELAND OR RUSSIA AND GET AS DRUNK AS YOU WANT! DONT DO IT HERE....AND ruin it for the rest of us.

    You know back in the early part of the 1900's our government took their alcohol away from them for good reason, it was destroying this country and taking away from our family values. It's time our government looks out for the good people once again!

    It is time we stand up and tell our legislators to put a stop to the loop holes that these drunks are using to take over our streets. Contact your congress and tell them, NO MORE ALCOHOL IN OUR PUBLIC STREETS! We don't want to stop them from drinking, we just want to make it illegal for them to drink on our public streets! Please sign below to help end the loop hole for these drunks.

    *Phone
    *Email
    *Kiss my _____________ John Witz!
    Last edited by coffee4meplz; 08-20-2010 at 09:20 PM.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    56

    Up Date! Royal Oak City Council allow Drunks at AB&E with a vote of 4-3

    "The law is the law, although we don't like it, we must follow the law" Says the mayor
    In a vote of 4-3 City of royal oak amends contract to allow drinking at the AB&E events. The city has agreed to put up what they call beer tents that will hold the drunks and allow them to get wasted.

    "We fear that, Even if they put up tents and tell us we can drink there....The cops might still arrest us because it's still in a public street" ..... We have been assured that there will be no harrassment or arrest from the police but there is the law of disorderly conduct which states no drinking in public streets" Say's a member from OIDO (open intoxicante dot org).
    AB&E has established that this event will be a family Zone only event.

    Blog your comments here....

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    What a country.

  23. #23
    Regular Member MarineSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Allendale, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    195
    God Bless America?
    Someone who can't be trusted to walk free in public with a firearm shouldn't be walking around free.

  24. #24
    Regular Member LaVere's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The remains of Flint, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    264
    This is one of the best reasons to do away with licensing of all guns and not have carry permits. No matter where or how they are carried. Very few know the law or understand it. And the interpitation changes daily. How can anyone keep up.

    Just my frustration showing up.
    Last edited by LaVere; 08-21-2010 at 03:39 PM.
    The use of force is a last resort. One aspect of violence is that it is unpredictable. Although your initial intention may be to use limited force, once you have engaged in violence the consequences are unpredictable. Violence always brings about unexpected results and almost always provokes retaliation.

    Dalai Lama

    ************************************************** ********************

    http://www.generalnewsgroup.com/

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
    Posts
    932
    curiosity got the best of me, so i did some digging.

    section H of 750.234d reads:

    (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person shall not possess a firearm on the premises of any of the following:

    ...(h) An establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control act, Act No. 8 of the Public Acts of the Extra Session of 1933, being sections 436.1 to 436.58 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
    so i did a search of the section of the mcl and found that it has been repealed (and replaced with a different act, )

    Act 8 of 1933 (Ex. Sess.) Statute Repealed-THE MICHIGAN LIQUOR CONTROL ACT (436.1 - 436.58)
    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%2...lltext=act%208

    so i am just curious if 750.234d h actually prevents possession of firearms from lcc licensed establishments by non-cpl holders since the actual LCC act is act 58 of 1998

    More digging is necessary......
    Last edited by lapeer20m; 08-22-2010 at 11:10 AM.
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (who will watch the watchmen?)

    I am not a lawyer. Nothing in any of posts should be construed as legal advice.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... 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
  •