Kudos to St Clair Riverfest for NOT banning weapons

http://www.stclairriverfest.com/

I believe I have seen weapons prohibitions in the past... but this year the list of things you are not allowed to bring is quite short.
NO outside food, beverages or containers allowed on festival grounds.
NO pets.
Unlike the hoedown you ARE allowed to bring:
Blankets – Umbrellas – Lawn Chairs – Strollers

NICE!

I've been to this a few times and it's a lot of fun it's held in conjunction with the offshore powerboat races.
http://www.stclairrace.com/
I live a few blocks from the river so anyone who wants to park at my house shoot me a PM.

Very cool! :banana:

Glad to see that some events have folks in charge who aren't swayed by the leftist anti gun/anti freedom/anti America crap.

Good on ya St Clair Riverfest!!!!!

anyone coming up for this? i will be out later tonight, but probably not carrying as i intend to enjoy myself in a way that the state unconstitutionally deems unsafe for carry

Eddy money on. No anti gun signs at the gates. Just no coolers.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

kudos too soon

see picture in link below. i don't think they are too serious about it though because i walked past security 4 times and they didn't say anything. i walked in one end of the midway and out the other, then went back through. i walked past state police, st clair police and richmond police. i know st clair and richmond saw me, but not sure if state did. btw, i was not flaunting or walking past them intentionally, they just had a huge presence there.

me walking past that sign is proof that signs prohibiting guns are little use. had my recorder rolling the whole time, but nothing to report. my wife and i posed for a pic on the same spot we got married one year ago tomorrow.

https://picasaweb.google.com/115928497670426177172/StClairRiverfest?authuser=0&feat=directlink

smellslikemichigan said:

see picture in link below. i don't think they are too serious about it though because i walked past security 4 times and they didn't say anything. i walked in one end of the midway and out the other, then went back through. i walked past state police, st clair police and richmond police. i know st clair and richmond saw me, but not sure if state did. btw, i was not flaunting or walking past them intentionally, they just had a huge presence there.

me walking past that sign is proof that signs prohibiting guns are little use. had my recorder rolling the whole time, but nothing to report. my wife and i posed for a pic on the same spot we got married one year ago tomorrow.

https://picasaweb.google.com/115928497670426177172/StClairRiverfest?authuser=0&feat=directlink

Click to expand...

Didn't notice you, but your wife is cute.:lol:

Venator said:

Didn't notice you, but your wife is cute.:lol:

Click to expand...

thanks for not noticing me. i don't mind that at all. yep, she's a keeper. and she's a member of MOC.

I believe many municipalities leave their illegal ordinances/policies on the books.. and even trot them out with signs on occasion... knowing full well they are "actively" unenforceable... hoping the general public will simply take the ordinance/policy at face value with the implied force of law behind it and voluntarily comply in fear of being arrested thereby "passively" enforcing an illegal ordinance/policy... but still enforcing it.

I am considering adding the following to future communications with municipalities that have illegal ordinances on the books.

----------------

FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION (EXCERPT)
Act 319 of 1990

123.1102 Regulation of pistols or other firearms.

Sec. 2.

A local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state.

History: 1990, Act 319, Eff. Mar. 28, 1991

© 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan

123.1102 available for viewing online at .... http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(qi...g.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-123-1102

And there is the following case law that supports State Law.

In MCRGO v. Ferndale, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that local units of government may not impose restrictions upon firearms possession.

THE MICHIGAN APPEALS COURT CONCLUDED: April 29, 2003 9:10 am. v No. 242237
In sum, we conclude that § 1102 is a statute that specifically imposes a prohibition on
local units of government from enacting and enforcing any ordinances or regulations
pertaining to the transportation and possession of firearms, and thus preempts any
ordinance or regulation of a local unit of government concerning these areas.

Further, we conclude that the specific language of the 2000 amendments to MCL 28.421 et
seq., particularly §§ 5c and 5o, which were adopted more than a decade after the
enactment of § 1102, do not repeal § 1102 or otherwise reopen this area to local
regulation of the carrying of firearms.17 Accordingly, we hold that the Ferndale
ordinance is preempted by state law and, consequently, we reverse.

MCRGO vs Ferndale is available for viewing online at .... http://coa.courts.mi.gov/documents/opinions/final/coa/20030429_c242237_47_85o.242237.opn.coa.pdf

Please note that MCL 123.1102 mentions "enforce any ordinance or regulation" but does not specify whether the method of enforcement would be active or passive.

"Active" enforcement would be an arrest that stops the offending behavior but "passive" enforcement would be signs or ordinances/policies on the books to be read by the public that causes the behavior to be stopped voluntarily in fear of being arrested... but because the end result by both is the "enforcing" of the ordinance/policy (forcefully by arrest or voluntarily in fear of being arrested) the ordinance/policy, simply by being on the books available for the public to view, is being... "enforced". Which is in direct violation of MCL 123.1102.

And because ordinances/policies that violate MCL 123.1102 left on the books (after the municipality has been notified said ordinances/policies are violations) would deny a person's legal rights through passive enforcement the following would be applicable:

LAW ENFORCEMENT (EXCERPT)
Act 158 of 1966

752.11 Upholding or enforcing the law; duty of public officials.

Sec. 1.

Any public official, appointed or elected, who is responsible for enforcing or upholding any law of this state and who wilfully and knowingly fails to uphold or enforce the law with the result that any person's legal rights are denied is guilty of a misdemeanor.


History: 1966, Act 158, Eff. Mar. 10, 1967

LAW ENFORCEMENT (EXCERPT)
Act 158 of 1966

752.12 Penalty.

Sec. 2.

Any person convicted of violating this act shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000.00 or imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or both.


History: 1966, Act 158, Eff. Mar. 10, 1967


Act 158 of 1966 can be viewed in it's entirety here:

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(yy...page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-Act-158-of-1966

this isn't an issue of an ordinance per se. it's more an issue of an outside company leasing from a city and incorrectly thinking they can regulate firearms. i've corresponded directly with the st clair attorney on a matter unrelated to OC and he just happened to mention that the city and PD were well trained and informed on the legality of OC.

smellslikemichigan said:

this isn't an issue of an ordinance per se. it's more an issue of an outside company leasing from a city and incorrectly thinking they can regulate firearms. i've corresponded directly with the st clair attorney on a matter unrelated to OC and he just happened to mention that the city and PD were well trained and informed on the legality of OC.

Click to expand...

I understand ... however the following portion of MCL 123.1102..............

"or regulate in any other manner"

would pertain to a municipality agreeing to a lease that allows the leasee to regulate firearms. Kinda like the municipality regulating by proxy through the leasee....

Bikenut said:

I understand ... however the following portion of MCL 123.1102..............

"or regulate in any other manner"

would pertain to a municipality agreeing to a lease that allows the leasee to regulate firearms. Kinda like the municipality regulating by proxy through the leasee....

Click to expand...

If a municipality decides to create an "authority", it appears that a few people (CADL, The Grand Rapids Rapid Transportation Authority", a judge in Lansing, etc) believe they can "regulate by proxy"!! It's not that large of a leap that municipalities could also lease out areas for a long term to some private entities who then regulate firearms ... and that some judge, somewhere would agree that the privatization then negates state preemption. I believe if the courts don't decide to hear MOC's appeal, we will start seeing more of this.

DrTodd said:

If a municipality decides to create an "authority", it appears that a few people (CADL, The Grand Rapids Rapid Transportation Authority", a judge in Lansing, etc) believe they can "regulate by proxy"!! It's not that large of a leap that municipalities could also lease out areas for a long term to some private entities who then regulate firearms ... and that some judge, somewhere would agree that the privatization then negates state preemption. I believe if the courts don't decide to hear MOC's appeal, we will start seeing more of this.

Click to expand...

I believe that if the CADL ruling is allowed to stand the concept of "authoritys" will be used by all municipalities to ban guns throughout Michigan and the right to bear arms will fall. And it will fall so far that the right itself will effectively cease to exist in Michigan. Followed closely by anti gunners in more and more States using the judicial system in creative ways until the right to bear arms is declared illegal in the entire U.S. of A..

What I believe will be the end result is "we the people" will have the right to bear arms but actually doing it will be illegal. And that will encompass ALL bearing of ALL arms... OC, CC, LG too.

Actually I suspect the right to keep arms will also be banned right along with the right to bear arms.

Or maybe I'm just looking at the dark side.

However, it would seem to me that the portion of MCL 123.1102 that says: "or regulate in any other manner" would prohibit a municipality from creating an authority.. or other entity.. and then using that entity (or an existing one) to regulate firearms because regulating by proxy IS regulating in an "other manner".

Or maybe I'm just looking at what the law says... not what some activist judge decrees it's supposed to say based on "feelings".

I disagree to some degree... yes, the judge could have interpreted the "in any other manner" to apply to something actually created by the aforementioned definition of "local units of government"... but since an authority, once created is not subservient to a "parent" unit of government, I also see that there is some logic to the judge's decision: if the state legislature had meant to include "authorities" in the definition of local units of government, they could have put it in there. Take a look through the MCLs and you will notice a number of times that the statutes mention preemption in other areas of conduct or policy; the definition of local units of government is much broader and well-defined.
Rather than heap the blame upon the judge, I blame our elected representatives. It took me less than 30 seconds to look up how the term "local units of government" is defined elsewhere in the laws of this state; it seems our representatives in Lansing could have done the same. Therefore, I think most, if not all, of the blame for the situation lies squarely at the feet of our elected representatives. My blame upon our reps is further bolstered by their lack of movement on ANY firearm issues and their standing mute while this is going on. I know that at least some of them have been made aware of this... where is their outrage, where is their attempt to quickly correct the ruling by subsequent legislation?
I hate to keep bringing this up, but we have a republican governor and a legislature with a majority of republicans and we have no movement on ANY pro-2A legislation. Not to mention we are faced with a case that could easily be corrected by our representatives in Lansing. I would aver that we had it better in regards to the 2nd amendment under Jenny than we've had in the first 6 months of Slicky Ricky...

jenny was pro gun. hell, she would not even let john cherry take a publicity photo without that ever present shotgun. she was WAY better than engler. sometimes party lines have nothing to do with 2A politics.

ElectricianLU58 said:

jenny was pro gun. hell, she would not even let john cherry take a publicity photo without that ever present shotgun. she was WAY better than engler. sometimes party lines have nothing to do with 2A politics.

Click to expand...

I wonder if he kept it in his office...

ElectricianLU58 said:

sometimes party lines have nothing to do with 2A politics.

Click to expand...

This is true, as republicans like mark kirk are very anti gun, but in general democrats are FAR more anti-gun than republicans. Look at states ran by democrats-
maryland, california, new york, new jersey, mass., washington dc, illinois, hawaii. Those are probably the most hostile towards 2A and all big time blue states.

detroit_fan said:

This is true, as republicans like mark kirk are very anti gun, but in general democrats are FAR more anti-gun than republicans. Look at states ran by democrats-
maryland, california, new york, new jersey, mass., washington dc, illinois, hawaii. Those are probably the most hostile towards 2A and all big time blue states.

Click to expand...

I would modify this to say that Dems are more open about their distaste for the 2nd Amendment. I think that that the Republicans do pay lip service to the 2nd, but as I often tell my daughter in situations when she doesn't know whether to believe her "friends" are being honest to her: It's not in what they say, rather, the truth lies in what they do. In fact, in many of the states that were mentioned, either the legislators or the governor is a Republican who espouses pro-firearm sentiments but yet betrays what they say with their behavior... such as supporting further restrictions of that right.

sent this email today to the 6 email addresses listed on the event website

To whom it may concern:I attended St Clair Riverfest event this year and was disappointed to see that, in violation of Michigan state law, there was a "no firearms" sign posted at the entrances. This "rule" was not listed on your event website with the other rules.
This topic has been beaten to death in the news over the past couple years and it is widely understood in Michigan that even "private" events held on public property are not permitted to set rules that conflict with state law. Last year, Royal Oak was advised by their city attorney that they were not legally allowed to ban firearms from the Arts Beats and Eats Festival. More recently, the city of Detroit notified the organizers of the Downtown Hoedown that they, too were not allowed to ban firearms.
I would imagine that part of your agreement with the City of St Clair included wording to the effect that you would abide by all state laws. Here is the applicable law which you attempted to violate:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(xr...g.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-123-1102
Furthermore, I openly carried my sidearm past your entrance "security" 4 times and was not stopped in any way. This shows the effectiveness of a mere sign in preventing firearms. Within the festival I also walked past and was noticed by at least 4 law enforcement agencies who did not attempt to stop me.
I invite your replies if you have any questions for me. I encourage you to remove the offending signs from all future events whether held in St Clair or elsewhere.
Respectfully,
Dan Edinger

*cricket*
no replies from any of the organizers