Detroit Zoo OC

[SpringerXDacp]

imported post

TTT for continued discussion.

 

[sprinklerguy28]

imported post

The zoo is owned by the city of Detroit. It is operated by the Detroit Zoological Society which is a registered non profit organization.OnFebruary 18, 2006DetroitCity Council approvedselling the zoo to save the city money. After public outcry theyvoted on March 1,2006 to transferall operations to the society but maintain ownership of all assets.On August 5, 2008Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb counties all past by public vote, a zoo tax to help support it. IMO that makes it public and we are free to open carry.

 

[mikestilly]

imported post

My family goes to the zoo quite a bit.. Needless to say we should definitely have a picnic there. They have a great facility for an OC picnic

 

[22-250]

imported post

Bump... I would like to add....

I wrote the zoo and said I understand that firearms are not aloud in the zoo. This was the reply:

------------------------------

Hello,

Thanks for your inquiry.

There is no restriction, so long as firearms are being lawfully carried in accordance with State of Michigan law.

Have a great day!



- John Anderson

 

[autosurgeon]

imported post

22-250 wrote:

Bump... I would like to add....

I wrote the zoo and said I understand that firearms are not aloud in the zoo. This was the reply:

------------------------------

Hello,

Thanks for your inquiry.

There is no restriction, so long as firearms are being lawfully carried in accordance with State of Michigan law.

Have a great day!



- John Anderson

Well that is refreshing :celebrate

 

[22-250]

imported post

Yeah, It took me by surprise, I was not excepting that at all...

 

[mikestilly]

imported post

There will be an OC picnic at the zoo this spring/summer

 

[smellslikemichigan]

imported post

22-250 wrote:

Bump... I would like to add....

I wrote the zoo and said I understand that firearms are not aloud in the zoo. This was the reply:

------------------------------

Hello,

Thanks for your inquiry.

There is no restriction, so long as firearms are being lawfully carried in accordance with State of Michigan law.

Have a great day!

 

- John Anderson

haha, wow! that's funny, i had to read through 4 pages of conjecture to get to this. :celebrate

 

[22-250]

imported post

Well stuff happens..

 

[coderdude]

imported post

smellslikemichigan wrote:

22-250 wrote

...
There is no restriction, so long as firearms are being lawfully carried in accordance with State of Michigan law.
...

haha, wow! that's funny, i had to read through 4 pages of conjecture to get to this. :celebrate

lol I was thinking the same thing when I finally got to this. Took me 15 minutes or more of trying to digest the different views of everyone.

 

[malignity]

imported post

Good to know.. not that my Glock 23 would do much against a polar bear, but hey.. its better than a rock I suppose. :lol:

 

[FatboyCykes]

Necro-bumb

OC'd from 9am-12pm on Saturday morning, quite a few looks, several whispered comments within earshot, even zoo security/safety on bikes but not one word from anyone. It was hot as balls, but a good time with my three boys.

Really looking forward to an OC picinic there, maybe in the fall when it's a bit cooler.

 

[Bailenforcer]

Seating Capacity is a legal definition.

The Zoo is not an entertainment facility, nor is the Detroit Zoological society a renter. They are a Management entity and are paid to do this job, as opposed to a renter who pays for the space provided. They are and legally the same as a accountant firm, or other "service" the City hires. The false seating capacity is not legal as it is a false claim. Seating capacity is a legal definition for the State Fire codes, and not some arbitrary number one dreams up. All one has to do is go to the amphitheater or legal entertainment facility within the park and search for the OFFICIAL fire code seating capacity signs to verify this. Understand I am not a lawyer, just a person who can sift through bull$hit. So the Attorney Generals opinion is in fact valid and we must understand all AGO's are researched by the legal staff and their lawyers before the opinion is filed. The AG ( attorney General) doesn't live in a vacuum. Too bad I am 400 miles away I could challenge that silliness.

I suggest someone go there and take photographs of the official seating capacity fire code signs, and show them here.

I should have read the last post before I posted this.... Great job Fatboycykes, and 22.250 !!

DrTodd wrote:
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.

 

[lapeer20m]

awesome! glad to hear you had no problems.

 

[Bailenforcer]

Can you convert that letter (scan) to a PDF file and post it here. I am starting to file a bunch of these, and anyone else who has any on PDF for any corporation I would welcome copies. I need one from meijers also.

Bump... I would like to add....

I wrote the zoo and said I understand that firearms are not aloud in the zoo. This was the reply:

------------------------------

Hello,

Thanks for your inquiry.

There is no restriction, so long as firearms are being lawfully carried in accordance with State of Michigan law.

Have a great day!



- John Anderson

 

[thekunk47]

Detroit Zoo open carry

SpringerXDacp wrote:
The exception being that in those situations preemption applies, whereas with the zoo, I do believe a CPL will be necessary to OC. So, as there is a three month turn-around time in Macomb county...who want's to picnic at the DZ in August/Sept.?

Three months! Balls!

I'll be happy to join you at the zoo. I have a CPL.Contact me at gekgun@yahoo.com

 

[DanM]

(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.

If either of the qualifiers exists then the statement is true. They can have 2500+ OR they can post above every entrance that they have 2500+. If the law had been written with an "and" instead of an "or" then both qualifiers would have to exist.

If you remove the first qualifier does the sentence still make sense?

Wrong analysis. The key to understanding part (f) is a strong grasp of English grammatical structure. One must be able to recognize main and subordinate clauses, and also be able to recognize compounding that may occur within clauses. Just like all the other PFZ definitions:
1) There is a main clause which specifies a physical location: zone, area, building, whatever.
2) There may or may not be following subordinate clauses which clarify further conditions.

Main clause -- "An entertainment facility . . ."

Subordinate clause 1 -- identifed by the word "with", which is one of many standard grammatical signals of the beginning of a clause:
"with a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals . . ."

Subordinate clause 2 -- this is a compound clause composed of two subordinate clauses as parts, both beginning with the word "that" (again, another of many standard grammatical signals of the beginning of a clause), that may stand alone or together as indicated by the compounding word "or":

Subordinate clause 2, part 1: "that the individual knows or should know has a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals . . ."

"or. . ."

Subordinate clause 2, part 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 the law, which is grammatically equivalent and will serve to clarify that the main clause and subordinate clause 1 are always conditions that apply along with the compounding going on within subordinate clause 2:

"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 individuals 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 other words, the main clause MUST be taken with subordinate clause 1 AND subordinate clause 2. And in the case of subordinate clause 2, it is satisfied if either part 1 OR part 2 exists.

 

[Ezerharden]

I seem to recall a similar debate a few years back (not here) regarding the issue of OC or CC at a county fairground during the county fair. As I recall, the general consensus was both were legal with exception to any "bandstand" style structure used for concerts and such.

 

[autosurgeon]

I seem to recall a similar debate a few years back (not here) regarding the issue of OC or CC at a county fairground during the county fair. As I recall, the general consensus was both were legal with exception to any "bandstand" style structure used for concerts and such.

Only for the few fairgrounds that are actually public. Most are private property and operated by a non profit.

 

[Ezerharden]

Only for the few fairgrounds that are actually public. Most are private property and operated by a non profit.

Ah ok. Well I am fairly certain that the one I go to, Monroe County, is operated by the County itself. I know I have carried there to gun shows in the past without incident.