Originally posted by Tim13
Yeah, tell that one to the cop when he's disarming you. I'm sure that he'll get a chuckle out of that one.
Exactly how will the cop, or anyone else, know I have a gun?
There is some precedent on this. Granholm herself ruled against either the Detroit Zoo or the Metroparks, one or the other, who were trying to say they were covered under the entertainment facility exclusion because more than 2500 people could sit on the ground.
It would seem that if the Trade Center could say they were thus excluded, so could a mall or a store the size of Wal-Mart, and this has never been attempted. Some malls have posted themselves as private property, but this is not the same thing.
Attorney General Opinion 7120:
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).