Question about Highland Games in Livonia

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Bikenut said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

TheSzerdi said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

Ok my wife has some friends that work for the city of Livonia so I'm trying to find out that way who pays for the police. Right now i think this differs from Arts, Beats and Eats in that ABE was started by Oakland County and contracted out to somebody to run the event because they at least have the foresight to realize that private sector would run it better.
If the Highland Games are completely private run and sponsored, i.e. St. Andrews rents the park and pays for everything ans Livonia has nothing to do with it my guess is they have private property rights. However as already noted and I have seen first hand there are LPD all over the place and no Private Security to be seen anywhere. Which I find the most intresting part of this.

In reality, the concept of private property is fiction, anyway. We pay a fellow citizen an amount of money to 'buy' the property, but we actually buy the privelege of paying rent (taxes) to the government.

If you believe you 'own' property, try not paying your taxes. We're really just serfs, our masters just have better cover stories.

Shadow Bear said:

In reality, the concept of private property is fiction, anyway. We pay a fellow citizen an amount of money to 'buy' the property, but we actually buy the privelege of paying rent (taxes) to the government.

If you believe you 'own' property, try not paying your taxes. We're really just serfs, our masters just have better cover stories.

Click to expand...

True in Michigan, but some state have no property taxes.

Venator said:

True in Michigan, but some state have no property taxes.

Click to expand...

Every state has property taxes. Some people may be exempt in some states as compared to others, but in every state, owner occupied homes are taxed.

http://www.mymoneyblog.com/state-tax-rate-maps-how-does-your-state-compare.html

Look under "property tax"

DrTodd said:

Every state has property taxes. Some people may be exempt in some states as compared to others, but in every state, owner occupied homes are taxed.

http://www.mymoneyblog.com/state-tax-rate-maps-how-does-your-state-compare.html

Look under "property tax"

Click to expand...

Hmmm I remember Alabama didn't have property taxes. Must have changes in the last 20 years. Or I'm all wet. Most likely soaking.

Venator said:

Hmmm I remember Alabama didn't have property taxes. Must have changes in the last 20 years. Or I'm all wet. Most likely soaking.

Click to expand...

I checked Alabama specifically, and found this:

http://www.ador.state.al.us/Taxincentives/proptaxincentives.html

It seems they even have the property tax written into their constitution.

Regarding property, and the distinction of private v public land, I add these words from Rothbard, a libertarian philosopher:

"Because so many of its [the libertarian movement's] people... have come from the right there remains about it at least an aura or, perhaps, miasma of defensiveness, as though its interests really center in, for instance, defending private property. The truth, of course, is that libertarianism wants to advance principles of property but that it in no way wishes to defend, willy nilly, all property which now is called private.
Much of that property is stolen. Much is of dubious title. All of it is deeply intertwined with an immoral, coercive state system which has condoned, built on, and profited from slavery; has expanded through and exploited a brutal and aggressive imperial and colonial foreign policy, and continues to hold the people in a roughly serf-master relationship to political-economic power concentrations."

This quote comes from the "Libertarian Property and Privatization..." article on the" all-left.com" website, whose articles discuss economic and social issues from a
left-libertarian perspective. Distilling the issue down to easy-to-understand language, left-libertarians consider the ultimate private property to be your own body, and since protection of that most essential "private property" is the most basic expression of the right of private property, property that is owned by legal fictions such as corporations is in a sense a second-order type that is beholden to the furtherance of the most essential type of property... the individual. So, I throw this out there to lend to the discussion; my personal belief is my carrying a firearm ensures protection of me and those to whom I am given the duty to protect...my offspring. The right of a corporation or other legal, fictional entity is not my primary concern.

DrTodd said:

I checked Alabama specifically, and found this:

http://www.ador.state.al.us/Taxincentives/proptaxincentives.html

It seems they even have the property tax written into their constitution.

Click to expand...

Yeah that's what I found too, it is one of the lowest in the country though. I may have been thinking of sales tax as some states don't have that.... Once again an idiot, me.

Venator said:

Yeah that's what I found too, it is one of the lowest in the country though. I may have been thinking of sales tax as some states don't have that.... Once again an idiot, me.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't go that far
When talking about taxes, the most accurate way to consider it is to look at all of the taxes and fees people are required to pay. Some states claim they have no income taxes and then you look and sure enough, no income tax but they have a tax we don't have, like a tax on the furnishings in your home or they might have a road tax that is collected by charging tolls. Although most people don't consider tolls as taxes but rather as fees; I know people in Florida that would beg to differ. Most of us here can recall a time where fees for government licenses were nonexistent or very inexpensive. With the word "taxes" being political suicide, many states have increased the cost for doing certain things, and the increasing number of these activities that now require a fee, to replace some of the money that used to be covered by taxes. The government will get its money, one way or another.

Yep, got charged a $90 'driving' tax, courtesy of MSP.

Did like the way the encounter went, though- let him know I was carrying, and he said OK, where?

Holster, right hip.

OK, where's your wallet?

Right hip.....

OK, just be careful.

Very polite. Could've given a geezer a break, though- I haven't had a ticket in over 25 years- how about a warning?

Anyway, pretty good for my first LEO encounter- no drama, just business as usual. Except for the $90....

Audio uploaded.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mleNL5jcQ2o

This park is owned by the City of Livonia? Looks like someone wasn't paying attention during Arts, Beats, and Eats. Tisk tisk. I'll talk to Venator and the Board about this to see if they desire follow-up.

I dont think land can go from public to private back to public. Everybody has to ask before entering "is the park public or private today?" The guy in the audio sounds like a real DB anyways. I always assume if people want to ban firearm they must not like my money either. There is nothing that important that I want to go to.

Private Property Rights cannot be granted to Public Property as this denies the True Owners (We The People) of Rights.

Most likely, the Event Organizers had a "Use Permit" for the Public Property much like Royal Oak AB&E Event. This may be part of the Livonia Ordinances, as in the following links:

http://library1.municode.com:80/def...797639dafd0506a4ee4581a852429f&infobase=13598

http://library1.municode.com:80/def...a80d33003345585aec07b598177ad1&infobase=13598

http://library1.municode.com:80/def...a23c2a0681f077e595565448da70ed&infobase=13598

What should be done is to request a copy of this Assembly License from the City Clerk, FOIA it, or find it from the City Council Meeting Minutes.

I believe that the following Livonia City Ordinance Covers Public Lands Definition and it may have been violated by this festival:

CHAPTER 12.20. PUBLIC LANDS said:

12.20.020 Purpose of provisions.

This chapter is designated to protect, preserve and beautify the parks and public lands throughout the city, thereby promoting the public health, safety and welfare. Furthermore, as these public lands are intended for the equal use and enjoyment of all Livonia residents, this chapter is intended to eliminate and prevent any infringement and/or personal use of public land by any individual, organization, business or adjacent property owner which could result in a hazard, nuisance or diminution of general public enjoyment or use of such public land. (Ord. 1604 § 1 (part), 1981: prior code § 5-1702)

Click to expand...

http://library1.municode.com:80/def...5252aea4952519301eaf725b78b74a&infobase=13598

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]

Audio here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mleNL5jcQ2o

Click to expand...

I found this AG opinion, #4727, that seems to argue that even the rights of a PRIVATE property owner are limited, if that property is to some degree open to the public.

http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/datafiles/1960s/op04031.pdf


This issue is migrant camps, but read some of the case law, and the constitutional issues involved, that Mr Kelley uses to support his argument that an owner can't exclude people from visiting the migrant camp...