Gun rights activists square off with Royal Oak over 'No guns' policy

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah, I saw that nonsense on the news yesterday. I never wanted to go to Arts, Beats, and Eats, but now that they're trying to ban firearms there, I really want to go and OC. Hopefully Royal Oak comes to its senses.
 
I don't think it should at all be illegal for a law-abiding individual like myself to carry a gun there. I would for the sake of being a pro-gun ambassador would prefer to carry one concealed with my license. We need to steer the voting non-gun types to our side not potentially alienate them by displaying firearms at a laid back family festival. I'd have no problem open carrying sitting at a restaurant or such but why the battle for OPEN carry as opposed to concealed which makes more sense. I think imo the holy grail of the pro-gun movement should be national recognition of state issued ccw licenses. I should be able to conceal carry my weapon legally while driving from michigan to california with many stops on the way. I also think we should try to remove non-sense "gun-free"zones from our restrictions. I understand not bringing a concealed weapon to a court bldg but why not a movie theater (2500 seating capacity, mich law) or church for that matter. Issues like this seem more important and practical now than open carry at a festival. I don't want to change the tide against the pro-gun, sef-defense movement.
 
I personally think those that don't like it should get used to it, after all we are the ones obeying the constitution. There was a time when having a gun a a function like this was common and accepted. I think it's about damn time it becomes that way again. And why does carrying at a "laid back family anything" make it less so? And why SHOULD I carry concealed if I don't want to? It's our kowtowing to these people that cause this and only ceasing this will get our RIGHTS back.
 
Props to all you guys fighting this. Being a "laid back, family oriented" event just means that everyone attending will feel safer and be less attentive to their surroundings. Those events are nothing short of asking for trouble if it's publicly declared that there will be no firearms there. Can we say a pack of victims?

Open carry at the event should be applauded by police and officials as it is a persuasive argument against being robbed or assaulted. I know several Royal Oak police, and of those that I know, only 1 supports civilian gun rights. FWIW, I think every state should have gun laws similar to Vermont (and now Arizona).
 
The Missouri state fair is starting this week. They have a firearms ban as well. Sadly we have no grounds for removal of the rule however, considering there is no preemption in Missouri and the cities can do what they want.

Good luck.
 
I think the question is one of liability not politics. The lawyers have made it almost impossible to have an event without a no firearms policy because otherwise if there is an accident the people putting on the event lose lawsuits.

I'd like to remind you all that this year there were no loaded guns, concealed or open carry, allowed at all at the NRA show in Charlotte. Last year in Phoenix we all had guns on us, even in the open. Greedy lawyers have destroyed our country and our freedom much more than politicians have.
 
I think the question is one of liability not politics. The lawyers have made it almost impossible to have an event without a no firearms policy because otherwise if there is an accident the people putting on the event lose lawsuits.

I'd like to remind you all that this year there were no loaded guns, concealed or open carry, allowed at all at the NRA show in Charlotte. Last year in Phoenix we all had guns on us, even in the open. Greedy lawyers have destroyed our country and our freedom much more than politicians have.
Click to expand...

Ah, but this is about politics, specifically it's about the City of Royal Oak violating state law by placing the gun ban in the contract with the festival organizers.

In Michigan we have a "Firearms Preemption Law" which means that no local government can enact or enforce local ordinances regarding firearms which are stricter then state law.

That means that a city can not ban guns in city buildings, city parks, streets, or festivals on city property. That's the ordinance the city is violating and the issue here.

No matter how concerned the city or festival organizers may be over "liability" they still can't ban guns, under state law.
 
All these morons in Royal Oak are doing is advertising to potential mass murderers that the place will be easy pickins' if they want to go on a shooting rampage.
 
'The Missouri state fair is starting this week. They have a firearms ban as well. Sadly we have no grounds for removal of the rule however, considering there is no preemption in Missouri and the cities can do what they want.'

Missouri cetainly DOES have preemption for everything except open carry. Cities, towns, and counties cannot ban ccw, except as specifically provided by law (like state and municipal buildings). Sedalia is not the entity banning the guns. The Missouri ccw law has a provision for 'gated' amusement areas to disallow ccw. The state fair is using that provision for their no firearms rule.
 
I agree the other non-gun people should get used to open carry at these laid back family events. Just like it was in the old west. Then we can all agree to that while anti-gun politicians like chicago based obama and such get overwehmingly elected and are rights attacked. I prefer to run the pro-gun cause in other directions such as more conceal carry friendly laws. It holds a better tatical advantage than having a gun in an open holster and a corn dog in your hand. National conceal carry reciprocity, elimination of non-sesne "gun-free zone's and elimination of state mandated assault weapons bans should be the course. At least first and foremost. Not every voter is a gun enthusiast like you and me.
 
I seem to have picked up an anti, or possibly an outright Troll, at my column. He's left comments on a couple of my articles so far.

Here's what he said about the Arts, Beats, and Eats article.

"Truth says:
Why do people with a gun-fetish feel the need to carry a loaded weapon at an art festival?
Because Royal Oak is so dangerous? Because of the bad crowds that hang out at art festivals? Give us a break. Leave your stupid guns at home for once. "

Some people just don't get it. If anyone wants to comment over there, feel free.
 
What I do not get is this..why is someone carrying at a family event considered so anti family? Would you be thrown if a COP carried a open weapon in the event? I would bet not. So it is a citizen carrying the weapon then.

Why would we carry it? protection. Don't need it. Well if the festival is so free and nonviolent and safe, why does the cop carry there? I mean it is perfectly safe so he would not have a need to use lethal force in the line of duty there.

It is total BS of you ask me.
 
I have no problem with law abiding citizens carrying anywhere. If you want to carry at a fair or a festival, whatever, God bless you. If you want to stand up against the anti-gun, gun free zone, garbage, even more power to you! Good Luck.
 
Being a "laid back, family oriented" event just means that everyone attending will feel safer and be less attentive to their surroundings. Those events are nothing short of asking for trouble if it's publicly declared that there will be no firearms there. Can we say a pack of victims?
Click to expand...

I disagree that everyone will feel safer. I am sure that is your perspective, but plenty of people will not feel comfortable with a bunch of people walking around an event who are armed. Remember not everyone that legally carries will look normal. Anything from biker types to Black Panther looking members might be openly packing.
So while I support the right of citizens to carry concealed in most situations, I disagree with your premise that everyone will feel safer.

On a side note, how often have there been major crimes committed against the patrons of this event?
 
Wow Vector, its that EXACT drivel that has lead to the creation of "gun free zones" in the naive and misguided idea that if you tell all the good folks to leave their guns at home that all the bad guys will stay home. What a crock. The FACT of the matter is that no one will FEEL safer, since concealed weapons are CONCEALED, but they will be in FACT safer. That is the whole idea. When people grow up and realize to leave well enough alone and let good men do what they will, then bad men will NOT be free to do what they will. Any other idea is just Utopian nonsense.
 
The hallmark of maturity is to be able to have a civil discussion with those you may disagree with and debate the issue, not try to belittle them or their position.

In reality we do not disagree with the major thought process on the right to carry, nor the tenet that firearms in the hands of law abiding citizen make everyone safer.
However not everyone thinks like that, and to ignore that fact is more naive than assuming others feel exactly like you do.
I do not go to many art festivals, but some of the people going there will not feel safer with every Tom, Dick and Harry openly carrying. I would dare say greater than 50% of the people might object to just anyone openly carrying a sidearm even if some of them are pro 2nd Amendment.
Now that might be hard for you to believe, but it is true. I used the example of less than stellar looking people being the ones openly carrying, because not everyone is going to look clean cut or responsible. I could post pictures, but take a second and in your minds eye picture some unsavory looking person with a .45 on his side walking through the fair knocking back a few.
Do you honestly think others attending(regardless of your own personal feelings) the festival will feel "safer as a result"?
 
Vector said:
disagree that everyone will feel safer. I am sure that is your perspective, but plenty of people will not feel comfortable with a bunch of people walking around an event who are armed.
Click to expand...
Why - as firearms owners - are we always responsible for the way others feel? Especially so when their feelings are based on irrational premises.

I for one feel uncomfortable when I am not armed. Where's the anti's that are concerned about my feelings? I'll tell ya. No where. They could care less how we feel

We shouldn't care one hoot nor a holler about the way they feel.

Maybe if firearms owners had cared more about their own feelings and less about the feelings of all the sheep in the country for the past 6 decades or so we wouldn't have near the number of BS gun control laws on the books we now have to bear.
 
Maybe you missed the part where I said 2nd Amendment supporters might also not feel comfortable with open carry by unsavory looking charterers.
If I see some ghetto thug I assume he is armed anyway, but that certainly does not make me "feel safer".
If you read my original post it was addressing the notion that "everyone would feel safer" with armed open carry at this festival.
I disagree with that premise.
 
My tone is in no way a reflection on YOU personally. I have no knowledge of you Vector and you may be the salt of the earth for all I know. I was addressing your point only. Back to that point, the issue is not FEELINGS, feeling safer is not the issue at all. In fact, this should be a discussion of philosophy and facts, not feelings. Unarmed people gathered in a public place may FEEL safer, but armed people gathered in a public place ARE safer. That is the fact of it.
 
the issue is not FEELINGS, feeling safer is not the issue at all. In fact, this should be a discussion of philosophy and facts, not feelings.
Click to expand...

Amen, brother.

Reminds me of my ex, who opted for an automatic transmission when our son was born. She thought she'd feel safer, since she'd be paying attention to the baby in the back seat, and didn't want to have to dedicate an extra hand and, apparently, her brain to driving.
 
2nd Amendment supporters might also not feel comfortable with open carry by unsavory looking charterers.
Click to expand...

I also take exception with this point. Other people's prejudices are also not my problem and have nothing to do with what people's RIGHTS are. Some people would call me an unsavory looking character. In fact most of the guys I work with have tattoos, earrings, goatees, long hair, or shaved heads, yet we are all LEOs and are gun loving law abiding citizens. I don't need legislators to take action to keep me feeling "comfortable".

What if a person's prejudice is race? Would it be a valid argument to say, "Some 2nd amendment supporters might not like seeing a black guy open carrying." I would say it isn't any more valid than the, "unsavory character" argument. Its your own responsibility to care for your own prejudices not to make everyone else surrender their rights so your prejudices won't make you uncomfortable.

Edit: Oops. I missed that you already made that argument too.

Black Panther looking members might be openly packing.
Click to expand...

Wow. So if you look like a biker or a black guy, you shouldn't be allowed to open carry. Now I get where you are coming from.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top