DeVos Place doubles down on it's illegal ban of firearms.

[DeSchaine]

So, back in March, MGO and MOC reps at a Womens Expo were told to remove their open carried firearms from DeVos Place.

In conjunction with their response to the MOC/MGO lawsuit, SMG has said they will put up signs spelling out the ban on weapons at DeVos Place convention center and DeVos Performance Hall. SMG is a management company hired by the Grand Rapids-Kent County Convention/Arena Authority, formed by Grand Rapids and Kent County by public act. The buildings themselves are owned by the Grand Rapids City-County Building Authority.

Here is the MI statute that lists prohibited places, AND the ever so helpful EXCEPTIONS, specifically subsection 2, line C: A person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon.

Now, being that DeVos and Van Andel Arena are both owned by a governmental authority, it's pretty clear that MI statute 123.1102 (aka: Preemption) comes into play. It seems clear cut, but as we saw in the Deffert case, the judges around here can be morons.

 

[BB62]

Thanks for the information.

Watching this with interest.

 

[Venator]

There response can be found here.

https://www.facebook.com/MichiganOpenCarry/?fref=nf

https://media.miopencarry.org/litig...omplaint Affirmative Defenses (as filed).pdf

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

http://mailchi.mp/miopencarry/moc-mgo-win-grand-rapids-arena-authority-policy-declared-unlawful

Looks like a win for MOC.

 

[BB62]

http://mailchi.mp/miopencarry/moc-mgo-win-grand-rapids-arena-authority-policy-declared-unlawful

Looks like a win for MOC.

Groovy!!

 

[DeSchaine]

The next step is getting this applied to Ford Field, Comerica Park and Little Ceasers Arena. Expect another fight over those that will end up going all the way to either the state or US supreme courts.

 

[Grapeshot]

It would appear that SMG management company creates problems where ever the go.

 

[OC4me]

Was at the DeVos Center today for the Jurassic Quest carrying as usual (but concealed for a change).

Anyway, just now having arrived back home (and out of curiosity), I checked the current DeVos weapons policy published on their website and here it is:

"Weapons Prohibited

Weapons include, but are not limited to, the following: firearms, explosives, stun guns, handcuffs, brass knuckles, sticks, clubs, batons, martial arts instruments, pepper spray, tear gas, knives, etc. Guests found in possession of the above-mentioned items will be asked to remove the item from the venue or dispose of it. Guests who refuse to comply will be ejected from the venue and may be subject to arrest.

Rarely, the carry of firearms may be allowed for individuals holding a valid concealed pistol license subject to all applicable state and federal laws—please contact the SMG administrative office at 616-742-6500 with questions regarding specific events."

I am unpleasantly surprised at the language purporting to prohibit firearms possession, albeit with a reluctant reference to 'may be allowed in rare cases for individuals holding a valid concealed pistol license'.

Are they allowed to ban open carry sans CPL? Does anybody know if they appealed the original ruling or have all the legal matters been wrapped up as of now?

I'm now itching to open carry there the next time.

 

[DeSchaine]

From the June 30th written decision of Judge Rossi:

Therefore, it is ordered, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is granted and CAA's rules regarding the possession of firearms are declared contrary to Michigan law, and thus, unenforceable as written. CAA shall refund Plaintiffs' exhibitor fee from the Women's Expo. Plaintiff may tax costs as the prevailing party.

Plaintiffs, Michigan Open Carry, Inc. and Michigan Gun Owners, Inc., shall be awarded $1,100.00 inclusive of all costs and pre-judgment interest, against Defendants, Grand Rapids-Kent County Convention Arena Authority and SMG Holdings, Inc.

This order resolves the last pending claim and closes this case.

Emphasis mine.

 

[OC4me]

So they did not appeal? Then if the litigation is over, why is their policy still unchanged?

Just curious. Is more litigation needed or is everything done and over with?

 

[color of law]

So they did not appeal? Then if the litigation is over, why is their policy still unchanged?

Just curious. Is more litigation needed or is everything done and over with?

The prevailing party could actually file motion for contempt against the DeVos Center for not complying with the court order.

 

[DeSchaine]

So they did not appeal? Then if the litigation is over, why is their policy still unchanged?

Just curious. Is more litigation needed or is everything done and over with?

As near as I know of, no they have not. Everything is done with. Dean Greenblatt or one of the board members from MOC/MGO would probably know more.

There was nothing in the order about changing their policy. They can have whatever policy they want written down on their website to scare off casual unknowing carriers. But, when it comes down to it, they are not supposed to enforce the policy. If they do, then they can be hauled back into court, contrary to what Mr. blind/ignorant col thinks.