Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 129

Thread: Question about Highland Games in Livonia

  1. #1
    Regular Member DanM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,937

    Question about Highland Games in Livonia

    Szerdi got kicked out:
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...=1#post1587950

    Quote Originally Posted by TheSzerdi View Post
    Just got home from St. Andrew's Highland games with Greyfoxx. . . . The President of St. Andrew's informed me that he didn't want me to OC there . . . Event was on public property in Livonia, but you had to pay to enter.
    Whether admission is charged or not, when or when isn't a city allowed to form an agreement on public property use with an event organizer which includes normally preempted firearms regulation?

    Also, I understand that part of the problem which defeated ABE's gun ban in Royal Oak is that the event area contained public rights-of-way as well as privately owned businesses and/or residences. Would those be a factor in the park in which the games were held?
    "The principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi . . ."--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr

    “He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death, may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden.”--M. K. Gandhi

    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." --M. K. Gandhi

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    135
    The Highland Games takes place at a completely enclosed city park. Admission is charged at the gate so its not like you can access the park to use it as a park. That's the best I can contribute to this thread.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    inkster, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    150

    highland games

    first, i am not a lawyer, as I under stand the law, the event was held on public property, even if you have to pay to get in, you should not have been removed from from the games, the group and the city should not have entered into an agreement that restricts your rights.
    Last edited by khicks; 08-06-2011 at 11:39 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member dougwg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,445
    Quote Originally Posted by khicks View Post
    first, i am not a lawyer, as I under stand the law, the event was held on public property, even if you have to pay to get in, you should not have been removed from from the games, the group and the city should not have entered into an agreement that restricts your rights.
    This!

    It's just like the RoyalJoke arts beats and eats event.

    They charged to enter onto PUBLIC property.

  5. #5
    Regular Member TheSzerdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Melvindale, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    290
    Personally, as little as I may like it, I believe the fellow was within his rights. The event was privately organized and (afaik) funded. The park was not open to the public. No public thoroughfares or private property was obstructed by the event.

    If public funds were used for the event, then he was absolutely in the wrong. Does anyone know if the St. Andrew's society pays for the police presence, insurance, and park rental?

    The cases of AB&E and the Downtown Hoedown both involve public funds and would restrict access to private property. That was not the case in this situation (afaik).

    To me this is no different than the event renting a piece of private property and making the rules for the day. The city (and therefore the taxpayers) were compensated and the event got it's space and it's rules.

    [AFAIK= as far as I know]

    Audio here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mleNL5jcQ2o
    Last edited by TheSzerdi; 08-09-2011 at 01:50 AM.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Why would the use of .gov money or property have anything to do with preemption? And What does blocking access to private property have to do with it? Private property may or may not allow firearms.
    Last edited by stainless1911; 08-07-2011 at 11:57 AM.

  7. #7
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,446
    Quote Originally Posted by TheSzerdi View Post
    Personally, as little as I may like it, I believe the fellow was within his rights. The event was privately organized and (afaik) funded. The park was not open to the public. No public thoroughfares or private property was obstructed by the event.

    If public funds were used for the event, then he was absolutely in the wrong. Does anyone know if the St. Andrew's society pays for the police presence, insurance, and park rental?

    The cases of AB&E and the Downtown Hoedown both involve public funds and would restrict access to private property. That was not the case in this situation (afaik).

    To me this is no different than the event renting a piece of private property and making the rules for the day. The city (and therefore the taxpayers) were compensated and the event got it's space and it's rules.

    [AFAIK= as far as I know]
    I agree with Doug. It was public property that a private company used for an event. They can't ban firearms because the city can't enter an agreement that allows a private entity to circumvent state law.

    Regardless of whether entry was controlled and a fee paid to enter they can not ban firearms. IANAL.

    Just think what a city could do if this was allowed. Lease the lobby of every city building to a private company and then ban firearms...

    Given your luck in past OC experiences I can understand your gun shyness..
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    He's right, the wording in preemption would specifically prohibit this.

    "or regulate in any other manner"

  9. #9
    Regular Member TheSzerdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Melvindale, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    Why would the use of .gov money or property have anything to do with preemption? And What does blocking access to private property have to do with it? Private property may or may not allow firearms.
    Public property is often used to fund gov't. State forest is logged, public arenas rented out, public school owned property leased out, etc. In this case a private group leased public property. In leasing the property they gained certain rights for the duration of the lease.

    If public funds were used (IE: Police presence) this would, in my opinion, negate their private property lease rights. If the area leased blocked access to other's private property (IE: AB&E) then this would, in my opinion, also negate their private property lease rights.

    Seeing as neither of these apply, they should be entitled to private property rights for the duration of their lease and thereby be exempt from preemption.

  10. #10
    Michigan Moderator Shadow Bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Grand Rapids
    Posts
    1,018
    Quote Originally Posted by TheSzerdi View Post
    Public property is often used to fund gov't. State forest is logged, public arenas rented out, public school owned property leased out, etc. In this case a private group leased public property. In leasing the property they gained certain rights for the duration of the lease.
    This would seem reasonable IF it were a private event, e.g wedding, company picnic, family reunion, BUT I find it offensive that public property could be co-opted for an event, open to the public, free admission or otherwise, and used to deny basic human rights.
    'If the people are not ready for the exercise of the non-violence of the brave, they must be ready for the use of force in self defense. There should be no camouflage.....it must never be secret.' MK Gandhi II-146 (Gandhi on Non-Violence)-- Gandhi supports open carry!

    'There is nothing more demoralizing than the fake non-violence of the weak and impotent.' MK Gandhi II-153 (Gandhi on Non-Violence)

  11. #11
    Regular Member TheSzerdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Melvindale, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by Venator View Post
    I agree with Doug. It was public property that a private company used for an event. They can't ban firearms because the city can't enter an agreement that allows a private entity to circumvent state law.

    Regardless of whether entry was controlled and a fee paid to enter they can not ban firearms. IANAL.

    Just think what a city could do if this was allowed. Lease the lobby of every city building to a private company and then ban firearms...

    Given your luck in past OC experiences I can understand your gun shyness..
    A building lobby would block access. IANAL, but in my opinion this would negate certain private property rights.

    If I recall correctly, all school districts are granted public property in the center of each county. This property is often undesirable for the actual use of the school and is therefore often leased. By your logic a farmer leasing this property would not be able to throw you out off of his property. (Supposing you had a legitimate reason to be there, such as purchasing vegetables from his stand he has setup there.)

    Edit to add: The entire private property argument hinges on the private group covering ALL city expenses/resources. If ANY public funds were used (police, park cleanup, property damage, liability insurance, etc) then pre-emption would apply. This would probably throw a wrench in the lobby lease plan too.
    Last edited by TheSzerdi; 08-07-2011 at 12:27 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member TheSzerdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Melvindale, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Bear View Post
    This would seem reasonable IF it were a private event, e.g wedding, company picnic, family reunion, BUT I find it offensive that public property could be co-opted for an event, open to the public, free admission or otherwise, and used to deny basic human rights.
    I completely agree, but however despicable it may be to deny such rights, I believe that private property rights trump those of guests. If you don't like it, leave. Although in that case I think the refusal to refund was legally questionable.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    The Sec of State for example often leases property from otherwise private property owners, and as a result, are preempted from banning firearms.

    Now if a public property is leased to a private party, then they are subject to preemption based on the cite above.

    Even if thier party blocked access of the public to public property, it had still been maintained and paid for by the public, and can still be patrolled or maintained by the .gov.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    If you had a wedding in a church, you could ask me to leave because of my gun, but if the reception was at the local state recreation area then you couldn't keep me from carrying at the reception, even if you rented the pavilion IMO. It still belongs to the state.

    If someone at the party set fire to the pavilion, they would be charged with damaging state property, not yours. Just because you lease or rent something, doesn't mean that its yours.

  15. #15
    Michigan Moderator Shadow Bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Grand Rapids
    Posts
    1,018
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    The Sec of State for example often leases property from otherwise private property owners, and as a result, are preempted from banning firearms.

    Now if a public property is leased to a private party, then they are subject to preemption based on the cite above.

    Even if thier party blocked access of the public to public property, it had still been maintained and paid for by the public, and can still be patrolled or maintained by the .gov.
    If they blocked access to the public, then I guess I wouldn't be there to complain. IMHO, charging admission is not blocking the public.

    If its a private event, by invitation, then by all means they can impose their will on their invitees. E.g. appropriate dress at a wedding.
    'If the people are not ready for the exercise of the non-violence of the brave, they must be ready for the use of force in self defense. There should be no camouflage.....it must never be secret.' MK Gandhi II-146 (Gandhi on Non-Violence)-- Gandhi supports open carry!

    'There is nothing more demoralizing than the fake non-violence of the weak and impotent.' MK Gandhi II-153 (Gandhi on Non-Violence)

  16. #16
    Regular Member TheSzerdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Melvindale, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    If you had a wedding in a church, you could ask me to leave because of my gun, but if the reception was at the local state recreation area then you couldn't keep me from carrying at the reception, even if you rented the pavilion IMO. It still belongs to the state.

    If someone at the party set fire to the pavilion, they would be charged with damaging state property, not yours. Just because you lease or rent something, doesn't mean that its yours.
    Correct, because public funds are being used. If ZERO public funds are used, private property rights should apply. Just my opinion. IANAL.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Public funds were used to establish the location to begin with.

  18. #18
    Regular Member TheSzerdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Melvindale, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Bear View Post
    If they blocked access to the public, then I guess I wouldn't be there to complain. IMHO, charging admission is not blocking the public.

    If its a private event, by invitation, then by all means they can impose their will on their invitees. E.g. appropriate dress at a wedding.
    So if I have a petting zoo that I have on land on a 20 year lease from the .gov that I charge admission to, I can't disallow purple shirts, firearms, or whatever I don't like?
    Last edited by TheSzerdi; 08-07-2011 at 01:04 PM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member TheSzerdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Melvindale, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    Public funds were used to establish the location to begin with.
    That's why there would be a rather larger fee to lease an entire park with it's built in support structure than the fee to rent a pavilion. Sort of like the fee is larger to lease a trailer home than to rent a studio apartment. In either case you gain certain rights and privileges through the contract.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    I agree that you should gain rights, not that you should lose them.

    That would make our rights into a commodity.

    As Brian pointed out, the .gov would start renting out lobbies all over the state just to get rid of guns. But hey, at least you could get a hot dog while waiting in line at the SOS.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756
    Quote Originally Posted by TheSzerdi View Post
    Public property is often used to fund gov't. State forest is logged, public arenas rented out, public school owned property leased out, etc. In this case a private group leased public property. In leasing the property they gained certain rights for the duration of the lease.

    If public funds were used (IE: Police presence) this would, in my opinion, negate their private property lease rights. If the area leased blocked access to other's private property (IE: AB&E) then this would, in my opinion, also negate their private property lease rights.

    Seeing as neither of these apply, they should be entitled to private property rights for the duration of their lease and thereby be exempt from preemption.
    MCL 123.1102 makes no mention of any exemptions for what public property it is... or what use the public property is put to... or who uses it for what reason... or if public funds are involved... but it does state:

    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.

    As has been mentioned the "or regulate in any other manner" would refer to a local unit of government entering into a contract that has a component that regulates guns above State law.

    So...

    It doesn't matter who uses the land for what reason.... if guns are regulated above State law such regulation is a violation of MCL 123.1102 no matter what that contract says.

    In other words... he who wants to use the land/facility owned by the government has to abide by the same laws as the unit of government that is allowing him to use it.

    Public funding has nothing to do with "or regulate in any other manner" but "or regulate in any other manner" does have something to do with stopping a unit of government from circumventing State law (MCL123.1102) by getting a private entity to start regulating firearms in a manner the unit of government can't on it's own.

    And no... I am not an attorney.
    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.

  22. #22
    Regular Member TheSzerdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Melvindale, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    290
    Don't get me wrong folks, I think the situation is BS. I also think private property rights are a trump card.

    Bikenut, I understand, but I don't agree. If someone leases public property and uses no public funds, they should have private property rights. Including the right to ban anyone, for any reason.

    In any case, by your logic, they could just ban people for other reasons, and all those people could just happen to be carrying firearms.

    Edit to add: Really pissed me off that a significant number of people were carrying various bladed weaponry (daggers, claymores, etc) that would be unlawful to carry in public. Also, playing devil's advocate is fun and makes us really think. :P
    Last edited by TheSzerdi; 08-07-2011 at 01:04 PM.

  23. #23
    Michigan Moderator Shadow Bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Grand Rapids
    Posts
    1,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post

    Public funding has nothing to do with "or regulate in any other manner" but "or regulate in any other manner" does have something to do with stopping a unit of government from circumventing State law (MCL123.1102) by getting a private entity to start regulating firearms in a manner the unit of government can't on it's own.
    Is there any case law to support what seems to be a common sense issue. Allowing private violation of basic human rights by a private entity on public property is unconscionable.

    They could rent a private facility if they want to be king for a day.
    'If the people are not ready for the exercise of the non-violence of the brave, they must be ready for the use of force in self defense. There should be no camouflage.....it must never be secret.' MK Gandhi II-146 (Gandhi on Non-Violence)-- Gandhi supports open carry!

    'There is nothing more demoralizing than the fake non-violence of the weak and impotent.' MK Gandhi II-153 (Gandhi on Non-Violence)

  24. #24
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756
    Quote Originally Posted by TheSzerdi View Post
    Don't get me wrong folks, I think the situation is BS. I also think private property rights are a trump card.

    Bikenut, I understand, but I don't agree. If someone leases public property and uses no public funds, they should have private property rights. Including the right to ban anyone, for any reason.

    In any case, by your logic, they could just ban people for other reasons, and all those people could just happen to be carrying firearms.

    Edit to add: Really pissed me off that a significant number of people were carrying various bladed weaponry (daggers, claymores, etc) that would be unlawful to carry in public. Also, playing devil's advocate is fun and makes us really think. :P
    Hey... you and I are good... nothing personal happening here...

    But if that "or regulate in any other manner" wasn't in MCL 123.1102 all that would be necessary to ban guns would be to rent out all public property to someone... anyone... for any amount of money.

    Imagine if anyone who rented the park for a family reunion could ban guns... or whoever reserved a pavilion could ban guns... or a municipality renting out all it's buildings but still using them so they could suggest the renter ban guns.... or if someone rented downtown for a festival could ban guns (oh wait, that was already tried and it didn't work).

    Anyway.... with public property there is already an "owner".... you and me and everyone else which collectively is considered "The State" ... and when someone rents the property we own ... the renter agrees to abide by the terms of the contract with "The State" ... and one of the terms is...... MCL 123.1102. Not to mention that the terms with "The State" trump anything local government wrote in, or agreed to, in the contract with the renter. Because... local government answers to State government.. which us you and me... and we own that property.

    Or it's supposed to be you and me and we are supposed to own that property.

    But I don't understand the importance you are giving "public funds" above "public property" since public funds ARE public property... and public property is just a physical representation of public funds. And both public funds and public property are owned by....... the public.

    Why the distinction between it not being ok to use public money by a renter who bans guns but it is ok for the same renter to use public property and ban guns? The renter is still using stuff the public owns either way.

    Not trying to be a smart arse... just don't understand your perspective.

    Oh... and I am not now, never have been, have no aspiration to be... an attorney.
    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.

  25. #25
    Regular Member TheSzerdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Melvindale, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    290
    From my perspective, if you pay all the costs associated with a piece of public property while leasing it, then you've effectively bought the property and it becomes private. If some of the costs are being paid with taxpayer money, it's still public.

    Edited to add: Just got off a 13 hour shift and I'm going to bed now. I'll catch up on the threads late tonight. I'm not running away, really I'm not. lol
    Last edited by TheSzerdi; 08-07-2011 at 02:00 PM.

Page 1 of 6 123 ... 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
  •