ALERT: Royal Oak Seeks To Create New Pistol-Free Zone

thekunk47 said:

They still don't get it.Even if it was declared a pistol free zone , open carry would still be legal with a CPL.

True, and they should be reminded of that.

It's a total waste of their time and it would be a waste of ours to go.

WHAT!!! Are you serious? No, it is never a waste of time to go, if it wasn't for the hard work and dedication of the OCers who did go, then AB&E would have been gun free, despite the laws!

Even if by some miracle they got special exemption just for this one city and festival....who cares. I don't wish to spend any of my money there anyway.

The money isnt the point. The money in fact, is completely irrelevant.

.
What could we argue anyway.We know state law and that's what they would have to change.

The argument is that we have rights, and the exercising of them will not be manipulated.

Michigan has the smoothest gun laws around.

WHAT!!! OMG! Permission slips, PFZ's, CPLs in vehicles, no OC on a Bycycle, colleges and schools functioning as governments above the constitution, (waterford being one of them,) municipalities like Royal Oak, What!!! what are you missing here???

Write your own letters and forget it.

Thats what will happen indeed, they will just forget it. just look at our struggle with Army74 in Pontiac, or hamaneggs deal, heck, we are honored in his case for the opportunity to pitch in and help, by putting our money where are mouth is.

Click to expand...

OMG!:cuss::banghead:

Jerbear1098 said:

Have to agree, with the likely hood of the constitutional convention prop 1 failing, there really isn't much of a stomach to change laws for just one city. See here all the polls so far.

http://www.clickondetroit.com/download/2010/0909/24947800.pdf

Click to expand...

Please do not... not for one moment... think that Royal Oak is the only municipality, or even the only entity or agency, that is contacting legislators in the hopes of changing the law to allow every little whistle stop to make their own gun laws and/or outlawing OC and adding new PFZ's.

And please do not think that those municipalities are asking for just their own area, or festival, or just OC,... I suspect they are asking for a much broader definition of what a civic "event" might be, perhaps tying it into attendance figures, and making THAT a completely gun free zone. No OC, no OC with a CPL, no CC, no transport, no guns!

The anti's may be arrogant, sneaky, vile, conniving, devious, and a whole host of other nasty things... but they are NOT stupid. And they don't care what "we the people" want or what the polls say... they will go ahead and ram it down our throats anyway.

Or maybe I'm just being entirely too suspicious of arrogant power grabbing local wannabe tyrants.

Please do NOT stop fighting/writing letters/attending council meetings thinking nothing bad can happen... it can... and if we don't continue to fight... it will.

Royal Oak BS

stainless1911 said:

OMG!:cuss::banghead:

Click to expand...

No need for anyone to get their panties in a bunch. We don't need to show up there and be boisterous. Quote the preemption law,the fact that other cities have tried this, and Ferndale to it to the Appellate Court and lost. Personally I don't care if Royal Oak falls into a crack and disappears. We just shouldn't let them set a dangerous precedent. Pick your battles and win them with poise and fact. Let them be the ones to use emotion and name calling,not us. It's too bad they don't allow a question and answer type of meeting.It wasn't easy sitting there being called names and being quiet but that's the agenda they have.We should speak our peace and leave.Anything they have to say would be erroneous anyway. I can't believe the lawyer is allowing them to waste their time and money.He should know better.

thekunk47 said:

No need for anyone to get their panties in a bunch. We don't need to show up there and be boisterous. Quote the preemption law,the fact that other cities have tried this, and Ferndale to it to the Appellate Court and lost. Personally I don't care if Royal Oak falls into a crack and disappears. We just shouldn't let them set a dangerous precedent. Pick your battles and win them with poise and fact. Let them be the ones to use emotion and name calling,not us. It's too bad they don't allow a question and answer type of meeting.It wasn't easy sitting there being called names and being quiet but that's the agenda they have.We should speak our peace and leave.Anything they have to say would be erroneous anyway. I can't believe the lawyer is allowing them to waste their time and money.He should know better.

Click to expand...

Many people miss the fact the City attorney's & Police Chief's serve at the pleasure of their Mayor/Council they can be fired quite easily by them. Hence. a conflict of interest between upholding the law & keeping ones job arises & guess how that battle goes 99% of the time?

thekunk47 said:

Guys,
They're just spinning their wheels. The premption clause was put in after much ado so the laws would be universal across the state. Michigan didn't want every jerkwater town having their own say-so about firearms.They're not gonna change it. There's nothing we can argue at the meeting except that they are dumb for wasting their time and thinking the state would change an old law just for Royal Oak. As close as the cities are around here it could be total chaos to allow it....and the state won't. I doubt if the legislature will even answer them. Let them make asses of themselves instead of reading and following state law.This movement would require a change to the Michigan Constiution itself and that's not gonna happen for a dinky town and their festival.Write to the same legislaters and to the governor if you wish but nothing of this magnitude will ever be approved in this state.
However if we go to the meetings and let them suck us into losing it or acting irresponsible they would have made a point.If you want to do anyhting just take your guns and sit their with a Chessire cat grin all night.If the media asks ...you can tell them what a joke you think it is. And they'll get even madder.

Click to expand...

I agree also, due to a previously scheduled open carry seminar me and the other MOC coordinators will not be able to make it.

thekunk47 said:

No need for anyone to get their panties in a bunch. We don't need to show up there and be boisterous. Quote the preemption law,the fact that other cities have tried this, and Ferndale to it to the Appellate Court and lost. Personally I don't care if Royal Oak falls into a crack and disappears. We just shouldn't let them set a dangerous precedent. Pick your battles and win them with poise and fact. Let them be the ones to use emotion and name calling,not us. It's too bad they don't allow a question and answer type of meeting.It wasn't easy sitting there being called names and being quiet but that's the agenda they have.We should speak our peace and leave.Anything they have to say would be erroneous anyway. I can't believe the lawyer is allowing them to waste their time and money.He should know better.

Click to expand...

Too bad we don't have a Parliament.

eastmeyers said:

Too bad we don't have a Parliament.

Click to expand...

Most parliaments aren't a good thing. For example, there is NO LIMITS on the power of the British Parliament -- just saying

I'm in!

See you all there.

I was there, as were some others, I was the one with the 3 ring binder. I tried to stay until the vote, but it got to about 10:45, and they were still arguing over item 16, nearly screaming at each other over whether some bistro could put some tables on the other side of a side walk. I only put 3 hours on the parking meter (that's all it can do at a time), and I was running out, plus it was getting late, so I left, and got back to the Parking Meter with 8 minutes to spare, at the rate they were going it was probably about midnight before they got to it, they may even still be there.

I found it funny that several of the agenda items were about liqueur licenses, and they were almost yelling at each other over them because it was so vitally important that they follow the law exactly, and don't break Royal Oaks Ordinances, arguing about some pool hall, and coming close to yelling at each other for about an hour, and ultimately voting to take away the guys liqueur license because he had the NERVE to extend his bar 10 feet without getting the commissions approval, even though he didn't have to, yet they approved Arts Beats And Eats's Liqueur license.

On a side note I think I might be related to one of the commissioners, I won't say who, but it was one of the ones that were practicably screaming at one of the other ones.

Small Arms Collector said:

I was there, as were some others, I was the one with the 3 ring binder. I tried to stay until the vote, but it got to about 10:45, and they were still arguing over item 16, nearly screaming at each other over whether some bistro could put some tables on the other side of a side walk. I only put 3 hours on the parking meter (that's all it can do at a time), and I was running out, plus it was getting late, so I left, and got back to the Parking Meter with 8 minutes to spare, at the rate they were going it was probably about midnight before they got to it, they may even still be there.

I found it funny that several of the agenda items were about liqueur licenses, and they were almost yelling at each other over them because it was so vitally important that they follow the law exactly, and don't break Royal Oaks Ordinances, arguing about some pool hall, and coming close to yelling at each other for about an hour, and ultimately voting to take away the guys liqueur license because he had the NERVE to extend his bar 10 feet without getting the commissions approval, even though he didn't have to, yet they approved Arts Beats And Eats's Liqueur license.

On a side note I think I might be related to one of the commissioners, I won't say who, but it was one of the ones that were practicably screaming at one of the other ones.

Click to expand...

We shall in no way hold this against you SAC.

I had to leave as it takes a little while for me to get home from there. Well if anything at least they are consistent...yell & screaming that is...sad very sad that this is what our government officials consider acceptable behavior.

Small Arms Collector said:

On a side note I think I might be related to one of the commissioners, I won't say who, but it was one of the ones that were practicably screaming at one of the other ones.

Click to expand...

<<<------------------Hmmm...I wonder who that could be...

.

Daily Tribune News Article

http://www.dailytribune.com/articles/2010/09/15/news/doc4c903c6a070bc205372248.txt

Snip

Paul Dalrymple of Royal Oak said open-carry supporters were a “non-issue” at Arts, Beats & Eats.

“There’s no evidence to support this restriction,” Dalrymple said.

He said he has written state lawmakers and he doesn’t think they will act on the city’s request.

“They can’t add up all the festival seating to come up with the 2,500 number. That’s been tried by other municipalities,” Dalrymple said.

He thinks city officials are licking their wounds after having to drop a gun-ban provision from the festival contract in August.

“They didn’t like the citizens coming in and exercising their rights. It reminds them they serve the people instead of sitting above them at the commission table,” Dalrymple said.

Click to expand...

That's gonna leave a mark.

I will have to seek out this Dalrymple guy, I would like to shake his hand.

Even if they did pull off a TRO, or claimed the 2500 limit, you could still OC with a CPL, thereby shooting themselves in the foot. All the CCers would have to OC, wouldnt that be nice.