1245A Defender
Regular Member
huh?
I'd rather it be ---- full of good scotch whiskey:lol:
I'd rather it be ---- full of good scotch whiskey:lol:
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Arts Beats and Eats
- Thread starter eastmeyers
- Start date
PDinDetroit
Regular Member
and to each shall be granted his own devices of destruction...
Damn, writing this email in "legal-like terms" is spilling out everywhere!
lapeer20m
Regular Member
video of our speeches 7/19
PDinDetroit
Regular Member
EMAIL DRAFT Copy, Not Yet Sent
Jon Witz
President, ABE
Mr. Jon Witz,
Thank you very much for taking the time to speak during the Public Comments and with others and myself directly at the Royal Oak City Commission on 7/19/2010. I am excited to have the Arts, Beats, and Eats Festival come to the City of Royal Oak, my hometown. I do believe that it will be successful, although I am sure there will be some "bumps in the road" experienced since this is the first time the event will be hosted here. I am sending this email in hopes that we can eliminate some bumps that have been recognized to ensure they do not become potholes later.
The information contained within this email, and the attachments, is what I described during our discussion is attached in terms of MI Firearms Preemption, further Entertainment Facility definition (MI Attorney General Opinion # 7120), and CPL Holder Open Carry in a Pistol-Free Zone (MI Attorney General Opinion # 7113). In regards to Concealed Pistol Possession per MCL 28.425o, I cannot imagine how Public Streets could be construed to be a bar or tavern licensed under the Michigan liquor control code of 1998. Additionally, in regards to Firearm Possession per MCL 750.234d, I cannot imagine how Public Streets could be construed to be an establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control act, Act No. 8 of the Public Acts of the Extra Session of 1933. Furthermore, I cannot see how the Special Events Use Permit granted to ABE by the City Of Royal Oak and/or DDA could be construed to grant Private Property Rights to Public Streets, allowing usurpation of a Person's Rights especially the Fundamental Right of Self-Defense as delineated by Michigan Constitution Article 1, Section 6.
The following is an item I wish to draw your attention to in regards to making the entire festival grounds a place where alcoholic beverages are consumed, which includes Residences and Businesses. Per MCL 750.141 (attached), minors under the age of 17 cannot enter in or remain on the ABE Festival Grounds without being accompanied by parent or guardian due to making the entire festival grounds a place where alcoholic beverages are consumed. The operator of the festival grounds, ABE Inc., would be guilty of a misdemeanor for each minor under the age of 17, without being accompanied by parent or guardian, entering the festival grounds, are found within the festival grounds, or are traveling to or from any residence or any business for any lawful purpose within the festival grounds. This, in effect, makes the ABE Festival an adult-only event and venue.
I am concerned that the Royal Oak Special Events Ordinance 312 (attached) may have been possibly violated during the making and performance of the ABE Contract, possibly resulting in criminal penalties. The specific provisions are under 312-7 and are the following:
C. The special event will not unreasonably affect the use or enjoyment of private or public property and will not cause unreasonable traffic hazards or delays.
F. The special event will not adversely impact or unreasonably affect the use or enjoyment of the private property in the vicinity of the event.
In my opinion, I believe 312-7 Provisions C and F are possibly violated by the ABE Contract Section 3, Item q statement of "No Firearms" on the festival grounds, which are comprised of Public and Private Property to which firearm owners may possess them on, travel to, and have use of these properties. Additionally, I believe 312-7 Provisions C and F are possibly violated by the ABE Contract creating the entire festival grounds as a place where alcohol may be consumed, which could result in the rights of minors under the age of 17 being infringed upon being able to travel to or from any residence or any business for any lawful purpose within the festival grounds. These provisions possibly being violated could result in criminal prosecution under 312-8, which someone should investigate to ensure a crime has not, is not, or will not be committed.
In my opinion, the only way for ABE and the City Of Royal Oak to remain consistent with MI Laws, Attorney General Opinions, and Royal Oak Ordinances would be to take the following actions:
1. Remove the "no firearms" clause from ABE Contract Section 3, Item q.
2. Designate and contain specific areas of the ABE Festival Grounds as places where alcohol is sold and consumed, not to impede access to residences or businesses for firearm carriers and minors under the age of 17.
3. Specific Areas containing Entertainment Bandshells/Stages within the Festival Grounds, having seating for 2500 or more people, should be contained and marked as such with signage according to MI Law. This specific area would constitute a Pistol-Free Zone (PFZ) according to MCL 28.425o, although Open Carry of a Pistol by a Concealed Pistol License Holder is legal per MI Attorney General Opinion #7113.
Although I respect your position and arguments made in relation to firearm possession within ABE Festival Grounds, the rule of law and rights of persons must prevail.
Sincerely,
PDinDetroit
Jon Witz
President, ABE
Mr. Jon Witz,
Thank you very much for taking the time to speak during the Public Comments and with others and myself directly at the Royal Oak City Commission on 7/19/2010. I am excited to have the Arts, Beats, and Eats Festival come to the City of Royal Oak, my hometown. I do believe that it will be successful, although I am sure there will be some "bumps in the road" experienced since this is the first time the event will be hosted here. I am sending this email in hopes that we can eliminate some bumps that have been recognized to ensure they do not become potholes later.
The information contained within this email, and the attachments, is what I described during our discussion is attached in terms of MI Firearms Preemption, further Entertainment Facility definition (MI Attorney General Opinion # 7120), and CPL Holder Open Carry in a Pistol-Free Zone (MI Attorney General Opinion # 7113). In regards to Concealed Pistol Possession per MCL 28.425o, I cannot imagine how Public Streets could be construed to be a bar or tavern licensed under the Michigan liquor control code of 1998. Additionally, in regards to Firearm Possession per MCL 750.234d, I cannot imagine how Public Streets could be construed to be an establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control act, Act No. 8 of the Public Acts of the Extra Session of 1933. Furthermore, I cannot see how the Special Events Use Permit granted to ABE by the City Of Royal Oak and/or DDA could be construed to grant Private Property Rights to Public Streets, allowing usurpation of a Person's Rights especially the Fundamental Right of Self-Defense as delineated by Michigan Constitution Article 1, Section 6.
The following is an item I wish to draw your attention to in regards to making the entire festival grounds a place where alcoholic beverages are consumed, which includes Residences and Businesses. Per MCL 750.141 (attached), minors under the age of 17 cannot enter in or remain on the ABE Festival Grounds without being accompanied by parent or guardian due to making the entire festival grounds a place where alcoholic beverages are consumed. The operator of the festival grounds, ABE Inc., would be guilty of a misdemeanor for each minor under the age of 17, without being accompanied by parent or guardian, entering the festival grounds, are found within the festival grounds, or are traveling to or from any residence or any business for any lawful purpose within the festival grounds. This, in effect, makes the ABE Festival an adult-only event and venue.
I am concerned that the Royal Oak Special Events Ordinance 312 (attached) may have been possibly violated during the making and performance of the ABE Contract, possibly resulting in criminal penalties. The specific provisions are under 312-7 and are the following:
C. The special event will not unreasonably affect the use or enjoyment of private or public property and will not cause unreasonable traffic hazards or delays.
F. The special event will not adversely impact or unreasonably affect the use or enjoyment of the private property in the vicinity of the event.
In my opinion, I believe 312-7 Provisions C and F are possibly violated by the ABE Contract Section 3, Item q statement of "No Firearms" on the festival grounds, which are comprised of Public and Private Property to which firearm owners may possess them on, travel to, and have use of these properties. Additionally, I believe 312-7 Provisions C and F are possibly violated by the ABE Contract creating the entire festival grounds as a place where alcohol may be consumed, which could result in the rights of minors under the age of 17 being infringed upon being able to travel to or from any residence or any business for any lawful purpose within the festival grounds. These provisions possibly being violated could result in criminal prosecution under 312-8, which someone should investigate to ensure a crime has not, is not, or will not be committed.
In my opinion, the only way for ABE and the City Of Royal Oak to remain consistent with MI Laws, Attorney General Opinions, and Royal Oak Ordinances would be to take the following actions:
1. Remove the "no firearms" clause from ABE Contract Section 3, Item q.
2. Designate and contain specific areas of the ABE Festival Grounds as places where alcohol is sold and consumed, not to impede access to residences or businesses for firearm carriers and minors under the age of 17.
3. Specific Areas containing Entertainment Bandshells/Stages within the Festival Grounds, having seating for 2500 or more people, should be contained and marked as such with signage according to MI Law. This specific area would constitute a Pistol-Free Zone (PFZ) according to MCL 28.425o, although Open Carry of a Pistol by a Concealed Pistol License Holder is legal per MI Attorney General Opinion #7113.
Although I respect your position and arguments made in relation to firearm possession within ABE Festival Grounds, the rule of law and rights of persons must prevail.
Sincerely,
PDinDetroit
scot623
Regular Member
Nicely done, PD. Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to craft such an articulate letter. It's my pleasure to work with you on this issue.
Venator
Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
There are damn worse was to go than 12 year old scotch.:lol:
Last edited:
Master Control
Regular Member
any other place to view & hear the audio other than vimeo?
Master Control
Regular Member
§ 312-6 Criteria for issuing permit. [Amended 5-5-1997 by Ord. No. 97-5]
Greeting PdinDetroit;
I'm kinda confused, your mention of 312-7 as opposed items C & F to 312-6, please advise
Greeting PdinDetroit;
I'm kinda confused, your mention of 312-7 as opposed items C & F to 312-6, please advise
PDinDetroit
Regular Member
Greeting PdinDetroit;
I'm kinda confused, your mention of 312-7 as opposed items C & F to 312-6, please advise
I don't think I mentioned 312-6 at all. The reason I left that alone is that 312-4 (Application for permit) in Provision A does not specific exempt 312-6 (Arts, Beats, and Eats Festival). This means that 312-4 and 312-7 would apply to the Arts, Beats, and Eats Festival as a Special Event requiring a permit process, in which I have the opinion that provisions C & F of 312-7 had possibly been violated.
I did mention 312-8 (Violations and penalties) as being potentially in play due to possible provision violations of 312-7.
Clear as MUD?
DrTodd
Michigan Moderator
Very well written, PDinDetroit. I especially liked how you pointed out that, if they argue that the whole area is a PFZ,
1. Such a decision may limit by age who can attend, thereby severely reducing any money they may recieve from admission, and
2), OCers with a CPL can carry anyway forcing some, who MAY have chosen to conceal before, to OC if they want to carry.
Perhaps we would even get a large number of people who normally just CC, upon seeing many people OCing, consider whether they too should give it a try. Think of the increase in CC supporters when they realize OC is a good way to go! So, imho, a possible huge gain if they try to "PFZ" the whole event.
ABE would, in my opinion, get exactly what they don't want! In a way, it would be royal to take a look at their faces if they decide to make the whole thing a PFZ and have around 100 people show up with pistols prominently placed upon their hips. Instead of me OCing my nice, black, and discreet G23, perhaps I should show up with my stainless steel SW 686 w/ a 6in Barrel.
I'll be sure to wear my western belt and put nice, shiny .357 rounds all the way around.Oh OK, pehaps a little spiteful :uhoh:
All joking aside, if they would just realize that they have nothing to fear/everything to gain by not only "allowing" us (I know, they must) but instead by "welcoming" us!
Last edited:
lapeer20m
Regular Member
video fixed: click on the photo for audio and video!
mikestilly
Regular Member
video fixed: click on the photo for audio and video!
Hey Lapeer,
Just wanted to let you know I was very impressed with your speech and felt you knocked it out of the park. Great stuff!
Mike
eastmeyers
Regular Member
I don't believe this should be part of the letter seeing as how their is no entertainment facility. Doesn't something have to be in side to be an entertainment facility? I thought their was an AG opinion about it somewhere. Looking for it now...
Got it thanks bing,
http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/datafiles/2000s/op10195.htm
Last edited:
NHCGRPR45
Regular Member
IMO i think that they, the city council and the lawyers are just going to go ahead and say no firearms. Mr. witz of ABE thinks are rights as they pertain to him at his "festival" are a grey area, and thinks that a judge would rule in his favor. we only have 1 council member that at least "said" he was maybe on our side. and lets admit it people, the laws are a bit hard to follow, or at least written in a confusieng manner.
when i first heard that i could open carry way back when i was 21, i said bulls**t, CPL instructors or the majority at least don't know, don't care, or just wont tell there classes because of an unfounded and negligent belief that they may be liable for what they teach. we as knowledgeble OC enthusiasts know that the law, many oppinions, the state police and a lot of law enforcement are with us also. as well as the last 2 attorney generals all agree with us!
however mr.witz i believe thinks what he is doing is right, and that he is doing a good thing, by trying to protect
1. his reputation
2. his investment
3. people at his event
1 and 2 might flip flop but the "people" will be last, as they always are in these situations. i don't think hes an anti-gunner, perhaps he really did mean what he said at the meeting about our rights, but from his point of view, useing jedi logic, if makes a rule that will make everyone "feel" good, he will feel good by proxy.
and i at least respect the guy for his stance, however misguided and wrong it is.
but i see him and the city loseing a lot of money when they either
1. forceibly remove OC'ers who don't get noticed going in, or
2. are told they cannot come in.
and you can be certain that since its a pay to play event there will be a check point, and you can be absolutely certain since we tried to bring this to their attention, they ticket people will be told to watch for us. with instruction to tell us we can't come in.
and my plan should that be the case, is this.
its a public event open to all, on public streets, with residences on those streets. i will not be paying at the gate i'll have my ticket already in hand because you can get admittance by turning in some food at local banks they give you a ticket.
this will let me go in without hopefully haveing to stand in a long line, this allows me to say i have already payed, you can't stop me from going in and i'll just walk on through. should a officer be there my response will be its a public place i can lawfully be. i'm going in and i will not back down on this, arrest me or let me through.
hopefully, and i mean that in everysense of the word, the officer will do the right and lawful thing, and let me in. i doubt thats what will happen though, and we all know what happens next.
if it goes well then i'll bring my family the next day so we can enjoy a pretty great time at ABE, for those who haven't gone it is a lot of fun.
well i guess we wait and see how the situation plays out, but i just dont see them backing down, i hope so and i agree that there is a somewhat positive dialouge, but i think this is one the witz guy will just let go to the courts. which we would win but not before september. we will if no change comes have to stand our ground on this one, and this will sadly i think end up costing the abe and royal oak cash.
when i first heard that i could open carry way back when i was 21, i said bulls**t, CPL instructors or the majority at least don't know, don't care, or just wont tell there classes because of an unfounded and negligent belief that they may be liable for what they teach. we as knowledgeble OC enthusiasts know that the law, many oppinions, the state police and a lot of law enforcement are with us also. as well as the last 2 attorney generals all agree with us!
however mr.witz i believe thinks what he is doing is right, and that he is doing a good thing, by trying to protect
1. his reputation
2. his investment
3. people at his event
1 and 2 might flip flop but the "people" will be last, as they always are in these situations. i don't think hes an anti-gunner, perhaps he really did mean what he said at the meeting about our rights, but from his point of view, useing jedi logic, if makes a rule that will make everyone "feel" good, he will feel good by proxy.
and i at least respect the guy for his stance, however misguided and wrong it is.
but i see him and the city loseing a lot of money when they either
1. forceibly remove OC'ers who don't get noticed going in, or
2. are told they cannot come in.
and you can be certain that since its a pay to play event there will be a check point, and you can be absolutely certain since we tried to bring this to their attention, they ticket people will be told to watch for us. with instruction to tell us we can't come in.
and my plan should that be the case, is this.
its a public event open to all, on public streets, with residences on those streets. i will not be paying at the gate i'll have my ticket already in hand because you can get admittance by turning in some food at local banks they give you a ticket.
this will let me go in without hopefully haveing to stand in a long line, this allows me to say i have already payed, you can't stop me from going in and i'll just walk on through. should a officer be there my response will be its a public place i can lawfully be. i'm going in and i will not back down on this, arrest me or let me through.
hopefully, and i mean that in everysense of the word, the officer will do the right and lawful thing, and let me in. i doubt thats what will happen though, and we all know what happens next.
if it goes well then i'll bring my family the next day so we can enjoy a pretty great time at ABE, for those who haven't gone it is a lot of fun.
well i guess we wait and see how the situation plays out, but i just dont see them backing down, i hope so and i agree that there is a somewhat positive dialouge, but i think this is one the witz guy will just let go to the courts. which we would win but not before september. we will if no change comes have to stand our ground on this one, and this will sadly i think end up costing the abe and royal oak cash.
Michigander
Regular Member
No, not really. If you know how to interpret MCL's, it's extremely clear that they don't have a legal leg to stand on, and we are free to OC as CPL holders beyond a shadow of a doubt, and as non CPL holders perhaps after a court battle. They know they're wrong, it was demonstrated that they're wrong, and somehow I'd guess that they think they might be able to appear right if they keep a stance of disagreement.
But I don't see it as an issue. I suggest that it should be an MOC event, with press releases put out to every media source that can be thought of, describing how Royal Oak is legally out of line and we will not allow them to be above state law, because we will be there regardless of their illegal contract. This is the sort of stuff that sales starved news papers and rating hungry news broadcasts are desperate for.
eastmeyers
Regular Member
IMO
What I think will happen...
I believe that the City will ignore us, I believe that their will be No Weapons Signs, however, I whole-heartedly believe that they will NOT enforce this. They will just try and make us look like the bad guys in the publics eyes. The Royal Oak officers will be instructed to inform John Q Public whom ask why do they have firearms if there aren't any weapons allowed, will respond with "they are using a loophole (even if it is BS), contact Lansing". This will be their strategy.
Again this is just my opinion.
The Oakland County officers will be on our side, I personally have no doubt of this. Also remember if you are denied entrance you can always call the Michigan State Police...
Again this is all just MY opinion.
:dude:
What I think will happen...
I believe that the City will ignore us, I believe that their will be No Weapons Signs, however, I whole-heartedly believe that they will NOT enforce this. They will just try and make us look like the bad guys in the publics eyes. The Royal Oak officers will be instructed to inform John Q Public whom ask why do they have firearms if there aren't any weapons allowed, will respond with "they are using a loophole (even if it is BS), contact Lansing". This will be their strategy.
Again this is just my opinion.
The Oakland County officers will be on our side, I personally have no doubt of this. Also remember if you are denied entrance you can always call the Michigan State Police...
Again this is all just MY opinion.
:dude:
PDinDetroit
Regular Member
NHCGRPR45 - It is my earnest hope that it never gets that far, as it would be better for all not to be that way. We have a little over a month to go before the festival, so there are at least 2 more City Commission Meetings to make our position known and how we will conduct ourselves - some of what you wrote below would make a great speech for the Public Comments time if needed. There are additional lawful ways to escalate the ISSUE as well. We had 8 Persons at the first meeting and 16 people at the second meeting, all Open Carrying while letting the City Government know our position respectfully - that alone is a HUGE ESCALATION and shows the measure of our resolve. How we have conducted ourselves speaks VERY HIGHLY in our favor.
I have sent the email letter this afternoon to Mr Jon Witz, with copies to the Royal Oak City Government, MI Attorney General, Oakland County Sheriff, and Oakland County Prosecutor. I would like to give them time to digest the information that we have spent LOADS OF TIME learning and living. I will post updates and responses here as I receive them.
The ball is in their court now!
I have sent the email letter this afternoon to Mr Jon Witz, with copies to the Royal Oak City Government, MI Attorney General, Oakland County Sheriff, and Oakland County Prosecutor. I would like to give them time to digest the information that we have spent LOADS OF TIME learning and living. I will post updates and responses here as I receive them.
The ball is in their court now!
RandyK
Regular Member
I was at the meeting when they talked about the OC sheriffs being at the event. I guess they will not show up unless R.O. pays them. I didn't seem like they could afford it.
Even more reason to be legally armed!
CoonDog
Regular Member
Below is what I don't understand regarding the city's position.
Given: under preemption, the city doesn't have the privilege to restrict firearms carry in the city streets.
Given the above, how does this privilege manifest itself through the magic of words on paper via a contract with a third party? Imo, the city cannot delegate away a privilege they never had, no matter the size of the paycheck.
Given: under preemption, the city doesn't have the privilege to restrict firearms carry in the city streets.
Given the above, how does this privilege manifest itself through the magic of words on paper via a contract with a third party? Imo, the city cannot delegate away a privilege they never had, no matter the size of the paycheck.
autosurgeon
Regular Member
amen!