Firearm Bans on Public Property During Local Festivals

[KLB]

Probably not.

Municipalities generally have the authority to cordon off an area for special events (like parades) and then that can become part of the leased area. If traffic is flowing, though, it is probably ok for someone - not part of the festivities - to pass through without becoming subject to the lessee's rules.

Probably. Maybe. Sorta.

And thus why we have so many in your profession

 

[Denny347]

Does the fact that part of the area is public streets make a difference?

Nope, not at all. The 500 Festival Parade occurs downtown Indy on public streets. However, once the Parade starts, IMS "ownes" the streets of the parade route for the duration of the parade.

 

[T.Lex]

Probably not.

Municipalities generally have the authority to cordon off an area for special events (like parades) and then that can become part of the leased area. If traffic is flowing, though, it is probably ok for someone - not part of the festivities - to pass through without becoming subject to the lessee's rules.

Probably. Maybe. Sorta.

Nope, not at all. The 500 Festival Parade occurs downtown Indy on public streets. However, once the Parade starts, IMS "ownes" the streets of the parade route for the duration of the parade.

You hate me, don't you.

 

[SteveM4A1]

What if the city doesn't actually lease the land to the organization? We have one of these around me. The city doesn't charge the festival anything to use the land, and it is established as ABC Festival in cooperation with the town of XYZ. I'm not sure if there is a lease agreement, or if you can even have a lease agreement without charging them?

 

[KittySlayer]

just curious thinking....
if one were to own an establishment, and were to make it a non-gun free zone, ie, to enter, you had to be carrying, would not the other side throw a **** fit?

So a gun would be required for entry? This would be kind of like those really fancy restaurants that would require a suit jacket. If you didn't have a jacket they would give you a loaner (ugly) to wear so you were in compliance with their Jackets Required policy.
With your hypothetical non-gun free zone establishment would the host at the door loan you a HiPoint so that you would be armed and in compliance with their policy while the non-gun free establishment?

They lease it to a private board, yet use public servants (paid by the taxpayers) to secure the event.... Seems legit. You would think the festival board would be required to hire private security since its private land.

I believe most/some festivals have to pay off duty officers who just happen to be wearing government issued uniforms.

 

[T.Lex]

What if the city doesn't actually lease the land to the organization? We have one of these around me. The city doesn't charge the festival anything to use the land, and it is established as ABC Festival in cooperation with the town of XYZ. I'm not sure if there is a lease agreement, or if you can even have a lease agreement without charging them?

This gets trickier - and again, this isn't advice to you or anyone else. This is just general legal observation for entertainment purposes.

The pre-emption law says "lease." Generally, leases need to be in writing. (There are exceptions.) If there is no written lease, there is a good argument that the private entity cannot enforce their GFZ rules.

A lease is a contract. To have an enforceable contract, you need 3 things (basically): offer, acceptance and consideration. That last thing is most often money. That's why a $1 payment for a lease creates just as much of a contract as $100M. Now, "mutual promises" can also be consideration. If both parties promise to do something of value, that can make a contract/lease enforceable.

Now, the pre-emption law doesn't say "enforceable lease." It just says "lease." The question, "Does the lease referenced in the pre-emption law have to be enforceable?" is unanswered at this point. We just don't know.

Not very helpful, eh?

 

[SteveM4A1]

This gets trickier - and again, this isn't advice to you or anyone else. This is just general legal observation for entertainment purposes.

The pre-emption law says "lease." Generally, leases need to be in writing. (There are exceptions.) If there is no written lease, there is a good argument that the private entity cannot enforce their GFZ rules.

A lease is a contract. To have an enforceable contract, you need 3 things (basically): offer, acceptance and consideration. That last thing is most often money. That's why a $1 payment for a lease creates just as much of a contract as $100M. Now, "mutual promises" can also be consideration. If both parties promise to do something of value, that can make a contract/lease enforceable.

Now, the pre-emption law doesn't say "enforceable lease." It just says "lease." The question, "Does the lease referenced in the pre-emption law have to be enforceable?" is unanswered at this point. We just don't know.

Not very helpful, eh?

Haha I figured as much. It is quite frustrating, since the town of XYZ clearly helps run the festival, and even have board members on the festival board.

Like we say, concealed means concealed. Except for when the board members know you always carry and will be looking at you all day trying to find it. Freakin hippies.

 

[CTS]

I really appreciate the responses. From what I've read here and elsewhere it sounds like the solution to this issue is legislative in nature and I'm going to proceed in that direction. Any organization making use of public resources should have to honor public rights to a reasonable extent. Unless there's a reasonable argument that the presence of armed individuals is a danger or disruptive to the purpose of he event, the event holder shouldn't be able to enforce policies that violate civil liberties. I doubt anyone would stand for a "no-blacks" policy during 3 Rivers, this isn't much different.

 

[Denny347]

I doubt anyone would stand for a "no-blacks" policy during 3 Rivers, this isn't much different.

Good luck with that analogy. Not even close.

 

[JettaKnight]

Good luck with that analogy. Not even close.

Right? Who gets to define "reasonable"; kind of like "commonsense" gun laws.


Plus, a lot of folks come from New Haven, so they'd be fine with that situation being enforced.

 

[T.Lex]

I really appreciate the responses. From what I've read here and elsewhere it sounds like the solution to this issue is legislative in nature and I'm going to proceed in that direction. Any organization making use of public resources should have to honor public rights to a reasonable extent. Unless there's a reasonable argument that the presence of armed individuals is a danger or disruptive to the purpose of he event, the event holder shouldn't be able to enforce policies that violate civil liberties. I doubt anyone would stand for a "no-blacks" policy during 3 Rivers, this isn't much different.

Wow.

That is a seriously odd conclusion.

Allow me to introduce another dimension to the problem: insurance. Groups that put on these events usually obtain (sometimes its even a requirement) insurance in case something bad happens. Those policies have common provisions, some of which include the presence of firearms. It is likely more expensive to have a policy that allows for firearms possession.

Is that bad? I dunno. Its a free market. Insurance companies have lots of smart people figuring out how to price certain provisions in the insurance contracts. Is it worth it for you to pay more (or pay at all) to subsidize the insurance policy that would allow for firearm possession?

Anyway, its also a variation of the private property rights angle. For that period of time, that group has exclusive use of the property. They get to decide the rules.

 

[gregr]

Best thing to be done is boycott all gun-free zones, but ensure they fully understand why you and your monies aren`t there.

 

[2A_Tom]

My question would be, what data was used to produce the actuarial tables referencing guns?

Actuarial tables are not supposed to be opinions, but compiled from factual data.