Question about Highland Games in Livonia

DanM · Aug 6, 2011

Szerdi got kicked out:
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...riences-Here&p=1587950&viewfull=1#post1587950

TheSzerdi said:
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?

the500kid · Aug 6, 2011

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.

khicks · Aug 6, 2011

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.

dougwg · Aug 6, 2011

khicks said:
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.

TheSzerdi · Aug 7, 2011

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

stainless1911 · Aug 7, 2011

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.

Venator · Aug 7, 2011

TheSzerdi said:
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..

stainless1911 · Aug 7, 2011

He's right, the wording in preemption would specifically prohibit this.

"or regulate in any other manner"

TheSzerdi · Aug 7, 2011

stainless1911 said:
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.

Shadow Bear · Aug 7, 2011

TheSzerdi said:
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.

TheSzerdi · Aug 7, 2011

Venator said:
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.

TheSzerdi · Aug 7, 2011

Shadow Bear said:
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.

stainless1911 · Aug 7, 2011

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.

stainless1911 · Aug 7, 2011

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.

Shadow Bear · Aug 7, 2011

stainless1911 said:
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.

TheSzerdi · Aug 7, 2011

stainless1911 said:
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.

stainless1911 · Aug 7, 2011

Public funds were used to establish the location to begin with.

TheSzerdi · Aug 7, 2011

Shadow Bear said:
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?

TheSzerdi · Aug 7, 2011

stainless1911 said:
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.

stainless1911 · Aug 7, 2011

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.

Question about Highland Games in Livonia

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter

Banned

Regular Member

Michigan Moderator

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Banned

Michigan Moderator

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned