Detroit Zoo OC

[DrTodd]

imported post

Venator wrote:

FatboyCykes wrote:

Venator wrote:

FatboyCykes wrote:

DrTodd wrote:

Venator,

You are correct, OC appears to be legal.

With, and only with a CPL though.

How is it illegal?

Per the AG opinion posted...

A reading of all the words contained in section 5o(1)(f) of the Act supports the conclusion that the Legislature intended that the term "entertainment facility" constitute a structure or building that has a known seating capacity of 2,500 or more persons, or that has signs above each public entrance stating that the facility has a seating capacity of 2,500 or more persons. Since the Legislature has not required that an entertainment facility be totally self-enclosed, such a facility could consist of a bandshell, amphitheater, or similar structure, provided it has the required, known seating capacity noted above or has appropriate signage above each public entrance indicating a seating capacity of 2,500 or more. This reading of section 5o(1)(f) is supported by the legislative history of 2000 HB 4530, enacted as 2000 PA 231. Both House Legislative Analyses, HB 4530, June 8, 1999, and January 4, 2001, state that HB 4530 would "[p]rohibit a licensee from carrying a concealed weapon in certain public places, such as a school, theater, sports arena, library, or hospital." There is no mention in either bill analysis that an outdoor recreation park, by itself, would constitute a gun-free zone. It is appropriate to rely on the legislative history because of the ambiguity in the statutory language. Luttrell v Dep't of Corr, 421 Mich 93, 103; 365 NW2d 74 (1985).

As I understand the above, weather it's accurate or true or not, a simple sign is all that is needed to designate it as an "entertainment facility".

Now, technically the signs are to the right or left of the entrance, not above, so mebe that's my loophole!

The sign is valid only if they meet the criteria, otherwise every place could post a sign saying it's an entertainment facility to shirt the law. The way I read it is if there is a entertainment facility within the zoo, like an stage or lecture hall that seat 2500 then that area would qualify, but not the entire zoo. Regardless this only applies to CONCEALED CARRY, not open.

But that would be only to enforce a prohibition under section 5o(1)(f) of the Concealed Pistol Act. If the zoo is privately owned or operated by the Detroit Zoological Society, they can prohibit firearms. However, the issue would really be one of trespass. Since the sign just states a seating capacity, this is not a general prohibition of firearms because, as the AG opinion states, the word "facility" means a building or structure, NOT just an area of property.

IMHO, the only manner in which such a sign serves any purpose has been found (by a reading of the AG opinion) to be non-applicable.

Nutshell version:

If they are privately owned or operated, I would say that carry of firearms is likely legal until such time as there is some sort of official notice that carry of firearms is prohibited.

If they are a local unit of gov't, then the signage has no meaning either since it is at the entrance to the zoo. In my opinion, to be legal requires each bldg, at each entrance to be posted a seating capacity of +2500. However, this would only limit the prohibition to the bldgs, not the zoo itself.

Sorry to disagree Venator, but the posting of the +2500 signage appears to be legal. The posting of a seating capacity at the doors of a building does NOT affect fire codes or other requirements. These rules usually state that the seating capacity of the building needs to be placed on a certificate in the building, nothing about entrances. But, I don't think just any building/ facility could do this; it would probably need to be an entertainment facility as defined in the AG opinion.

 

[zigziggityzoo]

imported post

DrTodd wrote:

Venator wrote:

FatboyCykes wrote:

Venator wrote:

FatboyCykes wrote:

DrTodd wrote:

Venator,

You are correct, OC appears to be legal.

With, and only with a CPL though.

How is it illegal?

Per the AG opinion posted...

A reading of all the words contained in section 5o(1)(f) of the Act supports the conclusion that the Legislature intended that the term "entertainment facility" constitute a structure or building that has a known seating capacity of 2,500 or more persons, or that has signs above each public entrance stating that the facility has a seating capacity of 2,500 or more persons. Since the Legislature has not required that an entertainment facility be totally self-enclosed, such a facility could consist of a bandshell, amphitheater, or similar structure, provided it has the required, known seating capacity noted above or has appropriate signage above each public entrance indicating a seating capacity of 2,500 or more. This reading of section 5o(1)(f) is supported by the legislative history of 2000 HB 4530, enacted as 2000 PA 231. Both House Legislative Analyses, HB 4530, June 8, 1999, and January 4, 2001, state that HB 4530 would "[p]rohibit a licensee from carrying a concealed weapon in certain public places, such as a school, theater, sports arena, library, or hospital." There is no mention in either bill analysis that an outdoor recreation park, by itself, would constitute a gun-free zone. It is appropriate to rely on the legislative history because of the ambiguity in the statutory language. Luttrell v Dep't of Corr, 421 Mich 93, 103; 365 NW2d 74 (1985).

As I understand the above, weather it's accurate or true or not, a simple sign is all that is needed to designate it as an "entertainment facility".

Now, technically the signs are to the right or left of the entrance, not above, so mebe that's my loophole!

The sign is valid only if they meet the criteria, otherwise every place could post a sign saying it's an entertainment facility to shirt the law.  The way I read it is if there is a entertainment facility within the zoo, like an stage or lecture hall that seat 2500 then that area would qualify, but not the entire zoo.  Regardless this only applies to CONCEALED CARRY, not open.

But that would be only to enforce a prohibition under section 5o(1)(f) of the Concealed Pistol Act.  If the zoo is privately owned or operated by the Detroit Zoological Society, they can prohibit firearms.  However, the issue would really be one of trespass.  Since the sign just states a seating capacity, this is not a general prohibition of firearms because, as the AG opinion states, the word "facility" means a building or structure, NOT just an area of property.

IMHO, the only manner in which such a sign serves any purpose has been found (by a reading of the AG opinion) to be non-applicable.

Nutshell version:

If they are privately owned or operated, I would say that carry of firearms is likely legal until such time as there is some sort of official notice that carry of firearms is prohibited.

If they are a local unit of gov't, then the signage has no meaning either since it is at the entrance to the zoo.  In my opinion, to be legal requires each bldg, at each entrance to be posted a seating capacity of +2500.  However, this would only limit the prohibition to the bldgs, not the zoo itself.

Sorry to disagree Venator, but the posting of the +2500 signage appears to be legal.  The posting of a seating capacity at the doors of a building does NOT affect fire codes or other requirements.  These rules usually state that the seating capacity of the building needs to be placed on a certificate in the building, nothing about entrances.  But, I don't think just any building/ facility could do this; it would probably need to be an entertainment facility as defined in the AG opinion.

Further, the law states that CC is illegal on the premises of the entertainment facility, which is the entirety of the property, not just within the building.

 

[DrTodd]

imported post

zigziggityzoo wrote:

DrTodd wrote:

Venator wrote:

FatboyCykes wrote:

Venator wrote:

FatboyCykes wrote:

DrTodd wrote:

Venator,

You are correct, OC appears to be legal.

With, and only with a CPL though.

How is it illegal?

Per the AG opinion posted...

A reading of all the words contained in section 5o(1)(f) of the Act supports the conclusion that the Legislature intended that the term "entertainment facility" constitute a structure or building that has a known seating capacity of 2,500 or more persons, or that has signs above each public entrance stating that the facility has a seating capacity of 2,500 or more persons. Since the Legislature has not required that an entertainment facility be totally self-enclosed, such a facility could consist of a bandshell, amphitheater, or similar structure, provided it has the required, known seating capacity noted above or has appropriate signage above each public entrance indicating a seating capacity of 2,500 or more. This reading of section 5o(1)(f) is supported by the legislative history of 2000 HB 4530, enacted as 2000 PA 231. Both House Legislative Analyses, HB 4530, June 8, 1999, and January 4, 2001, state that HB 4530 would "[p]rohibit a licensee from carrying a concealed weapon in certain public places, such as a school, theater, sports arena, library, or hospital." There is no mention in either bill analysis that an outdoor recreation park, by itself, would constitute a gun-free zone. It is appropriate to rely on the legislative history because of the ambiguity in the statutory language. Luttrell v Dep't of Corr, 421 Mich 93, 103; 365 NW2d 74 (1985).

As I understand the above, weather it's accurate or true or not, a simple sign is all that is needed to designate it as an "entertainment facility".

Now, technically the signs are to the right or left of the entrance, not above, so mebe that's my loophole!

The sign is valid only if they meet the criteria, otherwise every place could post a sign saying it's an entertainment facility to shirt the law. The way I read it is if there is a entertainment facility within the zoo, like an stage or lecture hall that seat 2500 then that area would qualify, but not the entire zoo. Regardless this only applies to CONCEALED CARRY, not open.

But that would be only to enforce a prohibition under section 5o(1)(f) of the Concealed Pistol Act. If the zoo is privately owned or operated by the Detroit Zoological Society, they can prohibit firearms. However, the issue would really be one of trespass. Since the sign just states a seating capacity, this is not a general prohibition of firearms because, as the AG opinion states, the word "facility" means a building or structure, NOT just an area of property.

IMHO, the only manner in which such a sign serves any purpose has been found (by a reading of the AG opinion) to be non-applicable.

Nutshell version:

If they are privately owned or operated, I would say that carry of firearms is likely legal until such time as there is some sort of official notice that carry of firearms is prohibited.

If they are a local unit of gov't, then the signage has no meaning either since it is at the entrance to the zoo. In my opinion, to be legal requires each bldg, at each entrance to be posted a seating capacity of +2500. However, this would only limit the prohibition to the bldgs, not the zoo itself.

Sorry to disagree Venator, but the posting of the +2500 signage appears to be legal. The posting of a seating capacity at the doors of a building does NOT affect fire codes or other requirements. These rules usually state that the seating capacity of the building needs to be placed on a certificate in the building, nothing about entrances. But, I don't think just any building/ facility could do this; it would probably need to be an entertainment facility as defined in the AG opinion.

Further, the law states that CC is illegal on the premises of the entertainment facility, which is the entirety of the property, not just within the building.

Not according to the AG opinion that was given; an "entertainment facility" is a building or structure and, unless the zoo is contained within one huge building, cc would not be prohibited by section 5o of the CPL Act.

 

[Venator]

imported post

DrTodd wrote:

Not according to the AG opinion that was given; an "entertainment facility" is a building or structure and, unless the zoo is contained within one huge building, cc would not be prohibited by section 5o of the CPL Act.

Correct on the AG opinion. THE REAL question then is, IS the DZoo a private entity? IF so preemption would not apply. What sends a red flag is why post the 2500 capacity sign if the could just post NO FIREARMS ALLOWED signs. Makes me think they think they are a public property and are using that as an excuse. Of course perhaps they don't want to come off as anti-gun and are using the seating capacity to placate gun owners. Hmmm.

 

[DanM]

imported post

DrTodd wrote:

If they are privately owned or operated, I would say that carry of firearms is likely legal until such time as there is some sort of official notice that carry of firearms is prohibited.

I agree on the basis that a zoological park or zoological property (a "zoo"), includingany of itsfacilities seating however many people,is not about entertainment. Bydefinition of "zoological"andoften according to "mission" statements or other written material, they are about thestudy and sharing of knowledge of animals. If anything, they could best be described as "educational" properties and facilities. In fact, many zoos take great pains tohighlight that anddistance themselves from the notion that they serve to "entertain" the public, especially when defending themselves againstanimal "rights" folks.

Zoos, and thefacilities on them, are for education, notentertainment; therefore, the "entertainment facility" prohibition on CC is moot. I believe that could be easily argued in court.



DrTodd wrote:

If they are a local unit of gov't, then the signage has no meaning either since it is at the entrance to the zoo. In my opinion, to be legal requires each bldg, at each entrance to be posted a seating capacity of +2500. However, this would only limit the prohibition to the bldgs, not the zoo itself.

I disagree on the basis I explained above about zoos beingfor education, not entertainment. However, if that weren't true according to a hypothetical new AG opinion or explicit statute (which is what is needed perhaps),and we were to assume that some zoo buildings are legally considered "for entertainment", I would still have a partial disagreement with you. The building would have to actually have a seating capacity of 2500+ along with the posted signs. EffectiveApril 6, 2009, 28.425o was amended and the relevant part now reads:



[align=left]"(f) An entertainment facility with a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals that the individual knows or should know has a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals or that has a sign above each public entrance stating in letters not less than 1-inch high a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals."[/align]


[align=left]The part in bold was added to the old wording that is seen in the prior AG opinions. Clearly, it was deemed important to add that a facility must actually have a seating capacity of 2500+, in addition to the existing requirements that either a person have knowledge of that or there be conspicuous signs about it.[/align]

 

[FatboyCykes]

imported post

So who is the end all, be all person to ask regarding the legality of firearms on Detroit Zoo property? Would it be the Detroit Zoological Society?

Also, it's a great place for families and if deemed legal, and lawful, we should definitely schedule a meet up there!

 

[Bronson]

imported post

DanM wrote:

"(f) An entertainment facility with a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals that the individual knows or should know has a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals or that has a sign above each public entrance stating in letters not less than 1-inch high a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals."



[align=left]The part in bold was added to the old wording that is seen in the prior AG opinions. Clearly, it was deemed important to add that a facility must actually have a seating capacity of 2500+, in addition to the existing requirements that either a person have knowledge of that or there be conspicuous signs about it.[/align]

"(f) An entertainment facility with a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals that the individual knows or should know has a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals or that has a sign above each public entrance stating in letters not less than 1-inch high a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals."

The problem is the use of the word "or" in the statute. By using "or" instead of "and" the wording states that an entertainment facility is off limits if either of two conditions is met 1) it has an actual seating cap. of 2500+ OR 2) It has correctly posted signage stating a seating cap. of 2500+.

So I agree with Ziggziggity, that THE WAY IT IS WRITTEN doesn't require them to ACTUALLY have a 2500+ seat cap. only that they post it.

I know it's a smarmy work around but regardless of the intent of the law, that is what it actually says.

Bronson

 

[zigziggityzoo]

imported post

Bronson wrote:

DanM wrote:

"(f) An entertainment facility with a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals that the individual knows or should know has a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals or that has a sign above each public entrance stating in letters not less than 1-inch high a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals."



[align=left]The part in bold was added to the old wording that is seen in the prior AG opinions.  Clearly, it was deemed important to add that a facility must actually have a seating capacity of 2500+, in addition to the existing requirements that either a person have knowledge of that or there be conspicuous signs about it.[/align]

"(f) An entertainment facility with a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals that the individual knows or should know has a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals or that has a sign above each public entrance stating in letters not less than 1-inch high a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals."

The problem is the use of the word "or" in the statute.  By using "or" instead of "and" the wording states that an entertainment facility is off limits if either of two conditions is met 1) it has an actual seating cap. of 2500+ OR 2) It has correctly posted signage stating a seating cap. of 2500+.

So I agree with Ziggziggity, that THE WAY IT IS WRITTEN doesn't require them to ACTUALLY have a 2500+ seat cap. only that they post it.

I know it's a smarmy work around but regardless of the intent of the law, that is what it actually says.

Bronson

Actually, I think I may be wrong here. You have to really dissect the statement.

The place must have 2,500 or more seating capacity AND EITHER:

A reasonable person would know the seating capacity is 2,500+

OR

They have a sign, stating the fact.

So they have to have 2,500+ seating in order for this to be valid.

 

[Taurus850CIA]

imported post

FatboyCykes wrote:

So who is the end all, be all person to ask regarding the legality of firearms on Detroit Zoo property? Would it be the Detroit Zoological Society?

Also, it's a great place for families and if deemed legal, and lawful, we should definitely schedule a meet up there!

They'll just give you their opinion. The end all, be all "person" may end up being a court decision. For now, an experienced and competent lawyer would probably have a good answer. It wouldn't hurt to have that person on retainer as well, should anyone decide to test the water.

 

[Taurus850CIA]

imported post

zigziggityzoo wrote:

Bronson wrote:

DanM wrote:

Actually, I think I may be wrong here. You have to really dissect the statement.

The place must have 2,500 or more seating capacity AND EITHER:

A reasonable person would know the seating capacity is 2,500+

OR

They have a sign, stating the fact.

So they have to have 2,500+ seating in order for this to be valid.

I agree, Zig.

 

[DanM]

imported post

Bronson wrote:

DanM wrote:

"(f) An entertainment facility with a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals that the individual knows or should know has a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals or that has a sign above each public entrance stating in letters not less than 1-inch high a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals."




[align=left]The part in bold was added to the old wording that is seen in the prior AG opinions. Clearly, it was deemed important to add that a facility must actually have a seating capacity of 2500+, in addition to the existing requirements that either a person have knowledge of that or there be conspicuous signs about it.[/align]

"(f) An entertainment facility with a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals that the individual knows or should know has a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals or that has a sign above each public entrance stating in letters not less than 1-inch high a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals."

The problem is the use of the word "or" in the statute. By using "or" instead of "and" the wording states that an entertainment facility is off limits if either of two conditions is met 1) it has an actual seating cap. of 2500+ OR 2) It has correctly posted signage stating a seating cap. of 2500+.

So I agree with Ziggziggity, that THE WAY IT IS WRITTEN doesn't require them to ACTUALLY have a 2500+ seat cap. only that they post it.

I know it's a smarmy work around but regardless of the intent of the law, that is what it actually says.

Bronson

No. The key to understandingpart (f)is recognizing the area to which it applies, and how that changed from old to new. In the old law, the area was simply "an entertainment facility" followed by a couple of additional conditions (which applied independently or together due to the word "or") prefixed by "that": 1)that the individual knows or should know has a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals, or 2)that has a sign above each public entrance stating in letters not less than 1-inch high a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals.

Another way of writing that old law, which is grammatically equivalent and helps to clarify by placing thearea it applies to before each independent additional condition, is:

An entertainment facilitythat the individual knows or should know has a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals oran entertainment facility that has a sign above each public entrance stating in letters not less than 1-inch high a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals.



In the new law, the area was given more specificity: "An entertainment facility with a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals" butkept unchanged the existingindependent additional conditionsprefixed by"that". Similarly with the old law, another way of writing thenewlaw, which is grammatically equivalent and helps to clarify by placing thearea it applies to before each independent additional condition, is:

An entertainment facility with a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals that the individual knows or should know has a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals or an entertainment facility with a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individualsthat has a sign above each public entrance stating in letters not less than 1-inch high a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals.

 

[conservative85]

imported post

Venator wrote:

DrTodd wrote:

Not according to the AG opinion that was given; an "entertainment facility" is a building or structure and, unless the zoo is contained within one huge building, cc would not be prohibited by section 5o of the CPL Act.

Correct on the AG opinion. THE REAL question then is, IS the DZoo a private entity? IF so preemption would not apply. What sends a red flag is why post the 2500 capacity sign if the could just post NO FIREARMS ALLOWED signs. Makes me think they think they are a public property and are using that as an excuse. Of course perhaps they don't want to come off as anti-gun and are using the seating capacity to placate gun owners. Hmmm.

I know for a fact that they just tried to raise taxes for the zoo to keep it open, If public money goes to the zoo than I would say(IMHO) that it might fall under the AG opinion of apublic park/rec center. "no taxation w/o reprsentation" I don't know just a thought.

If it is a building or structure that defines a 2500 seating rule then I would agree that as long as you don't go into that particular building you would be ok.

ON the subject of the security not carring...This does not mean private citizens may not. ex. McDonalds don't allow their workers to carry, but a private person may.

 

[eastmeyers]

imported post

DanM wrote:

eastmeyers wrote:

FYI, just a quick comment, the Detroit Zoo, is VERY ANTI-FIREARM. Not even their head of security can carry on-site, or their contracted security (witch is mostly off-duty LEO's) are allowed to carry on-site.

I am not saying don't do it anyone, just that you are more than likely going to run into some Huntington Woods/Royal Oak LEOs.

You seem to be putting it out there thatyou have someknowledge or experience about thehandling oflawful OC by the zoo/zoo security and the LE agencies you mention.Details on that knowledge or experiencewould be helpful.

Okay you didn't hear this from me (but)...

The Detroit Zoo, has there own on-site security, it is there policy that they are not allowed to carry on-site w/ or w/o CPL, or they will be terminated. The also employee a contracted security company, whom is mostly "moon-lighting" LEOs. I know this for fact. They do not even allow for these contracted guards/LEOs to carry on site, or they will no longer be allowed on property.

I don't know how they would act towards private citizens legally OCing. That being said, a security guard that may be upset that they cannot carry, might be jealous enough to call Huntington Woods/Royal Oak Police (both departments have jurisdiction here, I dunno why though, as well as Oakland County, and State obviously). All I'm saying is even though your not breaking the law, you might not wanna do this with out having the time to spare.

Sorry I'm not clearer in this topic but that is all I am willing to reveal on the web. Hope this clears up some curiositys.

 

[Venator]

imported post

eastmeyers wrote:

DanM wrote:

eastmeyers wrote:

FYI, just a quick comment, the Detroit Zoo, is VERY ANTI-FIREARM. Not even their head of security can carry on-site, or their contracted security (witch is mostly off-duty LEO's) are allowed to carry on-site.

I am not saying don't do it anyone, just that you are more than likely going to run into some Huntington Woods/Royal Oak LEOs.

You seem to be putting it out there thatyou have someknowledge or experience about thehandling oflawful OC by the zoo/zoo security and the LE agencies you mention.Details on that knowledge or experiencewould be helpful.

Okay you didn't hear this from me (but)...

The Detroit Zoo, has there own on-site security, it is there policy that they are not allowed to carry on-site w/ or w/o CPL, or they will be terminated. The also employee a contracted security company, whom is mostly "moon-lighting" LEOs. I know this for fact. They do not even allow for these contracted guards/LEOs to carry on site, or they will no longer be allowed on property.

I don't know how they would act towards private citizens legally OCing. That being said, a security guard that may be upset that they cannot carry, might be jealous enough to call Huntington Woods/Royal Oak Police (both departments have jurisdiction here, I dunno why though, as well as Oakland County, and State obviously). All I'm saying is even though your not breaking the law, you might not wanna do this with out having the time to spare.

Sorry I'm not clearer in this topic but that is all I am willing to reveal on the web. Hope this clears up some curiositys.

All this may be true, but he was making the point that many businesses don't allow their employees to have firearms, but allow or follow state law in regards to costumers.

For example I'm a state employee, I can't have a firearm when on the job in state buildings. Once off duty I can carry in the same building I couldn't just minutes before. Silly, but there you go.

 

[DrTodd]

imported post

Perhaps re-framing the whole "2500+ capacity" issue would be to simply distill it down to "action" versus "conjecture". Those of you who are adamant that a "Seating capacity 2500+" sign, wherever placed, means nothing... go ahead and test it. If you're paying attention to 5o prohibitions, you must be CC and therefore no one would even be aware of your interpretation. And likewise, those that think it means that one can't carry should do just that, don't carry.

Ocing is a bit different... but since, IMHO, it is not covered under 5o restrictions, go ahead and carry. If it is a private property situation (whether tax money is paid is, at least as far as the law is concerned, immaterial) and they ask you to leave and you do not, a charge of trespassing may be filed. If it is truly a "local governmental unit" and therefore firearms prohibitions have no effect, then only at that point a decision has to be made: stay and argue or leave.

No matter if the property is determined to be public or private, my course of action would be to carry and if requested to leave, to exit the premises asking for a refund of my admission price. IMHO, current legal opinion is that an admission fee is a "license" to be there and the trespassing charge without the subsequesnt refusal to leave would be difficult to prosecute, especially if the firearm is carried OC and the Zoo allowed you to enter in the first place.

Those who would carry concealed are rightfully concerned about it falling under a 5o (CPL Act) prohibition because such carry/use may not be subject to the legal protections of Michigan's self Defense Law (PA 309 of 2006). HOWEVER, it's only my opinion, in the case of "Death" vs. "POSSIBLY being in violation", I choose the latter.

Personally, and by all means this is no suggestion for others, I would carry OC and deal with the possibility of them saying "leave now". But, let's say I choose CC. At the moment that something major is going down and I pull my pistol out while holding it in my hand, it is no longer CC but now becomes OC. (There is a case in MI where a pistol in the hand is ruled as OC, not CC. I can find it if you'd like.) My placing the pistol in my hand, in my not-a-lawyer opinion, negates the whole "cc+signage" issue. But remember, I am just stating what I would do..

NOTE: Since I can't ever imagine going to the Detroit Zoo (I have never been there), my previous paragraph in no way asserts that I am going to violate the law. It is pure fantasy on my part; my visit is as near an impossibility as there can be. Also, I say once again, this in no way is a suggestion for others, just what I in my "impossible" visit would do.

 

[Ltdave]

imported post

stating in letters not less than 1-inch high

to which i add, the letters are FAR from being 1" high. i would guess they might make 5/8' and at the bottom of the sign...

not the best images but you can see the approximate size of the letters. the bottom line i believe is where it states the seating capacity...

 

[FatboyCykes]

imported post

Thanks LtDave, and welcome!



Lets go to the zoo!

 

[jeremy05]

imported post

what happens if you goto the zoo, and the ticket person tells you " you can't bring that in here"



You going to A. put it in your car

B Ask for a supervisor who tells you the same thing

C. I dunno... get into a pissing match about laws with the booth lady?

 

[lapeer20m]

imported post

according to this link on the zoo's website, it looks to be a public entity releated to the city of detroit.

http://www.detroitzoo.org/About/About_the_Zoo/Detroit_Zoological_Society/


"A year later, Detroiters voted to create a four-man Detroit Zoological Park Commission to operate and develop the site. The first Commission meeting was on October 1, 1924. At this point, the Detroit Zoological Park became a legal reality, and Society Secretary Follett was named its first director."

 

[FatboyCykes]

imported post

Heya there Lapeer, I had a buddy who lived in Hadley, he went to teach in S. Korea, Austin was his name-o. I only tell you this because he made Hadley out to be such a small place that everyone knew everyone.

Still seems to be no resolution on the DZ, other than that it is, at least on the surface, to be legal to carry at the very minimum openly, unless asked to leave. There still seems to be some confusion on weather or not it is public or privately owned.

Hmm, can it be publicly owned, yet privately operated?