I live in Dearborn and attend Greenfield Village alot.can we CC or OC in there ?

[LLM1250]

 I was curious, what is the "right" thing to do when it comes to attending Greenfield Village

thanks,
LLM1250

[Greyh Seer]

Is Greenfield village public or private property?

[TheQ]

I've CC'd in there and wasn't smitten dead. I'd say you're ok.

[Scotchman]

I was going to ask the same question but searched first....

I would specifically like to know about OC. It would be appropriate as my family likes to dress the period when we attend.

[Glock9mmOldStyle]

They appear to be a private Non profit, which means they can and do ban firearms!

http://www.thehenryford.org/legal.aspx

snip:

Rules and Regulations

    Loitering, gambling, selling, soliciting or campaigning on The Henry Ford properties is prohibited.

    Carrying weapons or dangerous objects while visiting The Henry Ford properties is prohibited.

    No open fires or personal grills are allowed.  Alcoholic beverages that are not sold on premises are not allowed. (*Alcoholic beverages are sold and served by The Henry Ford Food Services and Catering departments).

[TheQ]

There were no signs visible at the ticket area or entrance.  I'm not in a habbit of reading the website of every place I go before I go there....

[red88gt]

There were no signs visible at the ticket area or entrance.  I'm not in a habbit of reading the website of every place I go before I go there....

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. I feel I can shed better light on this subject as I am a security officer at The Henry Ford. It is agaisnt the law to OC/CC on our property and we also have signs posted which state no weapons or firearms are allowed, no exceptions. Guests who conceal carry like you say you have done are breaking the law.

[TheQ]

There were no signs visible at the ticket area or entrance.  I'm not in a habbit of reading the website of every place I go before I go there....

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. I feel I can shed better light on this subject as I am a security officer at The Henry Ford. It is agaisnt the law to OC/CC on our property and we also have signs posted which state no weapons or firearms are allowed, no exceptions. Guests who conceal carry like you say you have done are breaking the law.

Citation needed. Which law? Whose law?

Surely you can cite a code section for us...?

Take a picture of the signs -- Where are they posted exactly? I saw none.

Your post seems lacking details and citations.

[drtodd]

There were no signs visible at the ticket area or entrance.  I'm not in a habbit of reading the website of every place I go before I go there....

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. I feel I can shed better light on this subject as I am a security officer at The Henry Ford. It is agaisnt the law to OC/CC on our property and we also have signs posted which state no weapons or firearms are allowed, no exceptions. Guests who conceal carry like you say you have done are breaking the law.

He broke no law; the Henry Ford is not listed as a no-cc area under state law. If you'd try a trespassing charge, since he was never notified, he didn't violate the statutes regarding trespass of property. So, the question needs to be asked again, what law was violated?

[red88gt]

We are a private organization there are signs posted, I'll gladly take a picture if u insist, there's info on the website, and we I recall an idividual asking if he could carry and people above me told them to put it in their vehicle.

[red88gt]

They appear to be a private Non profit, which means they can and do ban firearms!

http://www.thehenryford.org/legal.aspx

snip:

Rules and Regulations

    Loitering, gambling, selling, soliciting or campaigning on The Henry Ford properties is prohibited.

    Carrying weapons or dangerous objects while visiting The Henry Ford properties is prohibited.

    No open fires or personal grills are allowed.  Alcoholic beverages that are not sold on premises are not allowed. (*Alcoholic beverages are sold and served by The Henry Ford Food Services and Catering departments).
See this post as well.

[TheQ]

We are a private organization there are signs posted, I'll gladly take a picture if u insist, there's info on the website, and we I recall an idividual asking if he could carry and people above me told them to put it in their vehicle.

That's great.  I usually don't ask if I can carry where I go.  Ergo, no one told me.  The law doesn't require that I ask.  I was not informed about your rules.  You have cited the private property rules when asked to cite the law.  Private property rules are not t"the law" -- IE: there is no criminal sanction behind them.  As DrTodd noted, I was not asked to leave, nor saw the sign, therefore there was no criminal trespass as there was no mens rea.

Being you are new to the forum, you might want to brush up on what is a law and what isn't before you proclaim there is a law against something next time.  Also, you should get used to citing yourself when you say "there is a law".  These citations typically take the format of "MCL X.X" as in Michigan most local gun laws are preempted by MCL 123.1102.   You should probably become an expert in Michigan Laws regarding ownership and carry of a gun particularly handguns as most of us on this forum have.  Amongst those you should memorize MCL 123.1102 (cite and words) as it is our strongest carry law in the State of Michigan.  Treat the site/PDF I just gave you as your carry bible.

That all being said, the next time my family wants to go to the Henry Ford Museum my household will be sure not to attend.  I'd hate to support an anti-gun organization and I'd hate to disrespect your private property rules.  You can pass that along to your management.

[red88gt]

The intention of my post was to inform the OP on the policy we have on guns and weapons. That is all, I at no point meant to start such a ridiculous argument as you have. I would be glad to pass on what you think to management but that wil get nowhere. You have assumed hat I am a spokesman for THF while I am not and just go off of the information we are given in briefings pertaining to guns. Don't be so serious man, its not very becoming 

[drtodd]

The intention of my post was to inform the OP on the policy we have on guns and weapons. That is all, I at no point meant to start such a ridiculous argument as you have. I would be glad to pass on what you think to management but that wil get nowhere. You have assumed hat I am a spokesman for THF while I am not and just go off of the information we are given in briefings pertaining to guns. Don't be so serious man, its not very becoming 

I understand what you are saying, basically "don't shoot the messenger". My point was that he may have violated a "policy" but, policy does not equal law.
That being said, I don't know where you stand regarding your employer's policy, but banning firearms does not make sense. Anyone who has ill will towards your employer or people in general will ignore the sign, that is if they even see them. And, since I don't think it is generally known that firearms are prohibited, do you think it's logical to tell someone open carrying to put the pistol in their car when perhaps a half-dozen people have concealed firearms on the property at any moment you are open? Not to mention liability if a firearm is stolen out of the car. Additionally, what liability would your employer incur if someone did come in and cause harm... a situation that could have been prevented by my carrying a firearm? I am not a fan of litigation, but I would not only sue The Henry Ford, I would also sue anyone individually even remotely connected to the removal of my legal means of self-preservation.

[red88gt]

The intention of my post was to inform the OP on the policy we have on guns and weapons. That is all, I at no point meant to start such a ridiculous argument as you have. I would be glad to pass on what you think to management but that wil get nowhere. You have assumed hat I am a spokesman for THF while I am not and just go off of the information we are given in briefings pertaining to guns. Don't be so serious man, its not very becoming 

I understand what you are saying, basically "don't shoot the messenger". My point was that he may have violated a "policy" but, policy does not equal law.
That being said, I don't know where you stand regarding your employer's policy, but banning firearms does not make sense. Anyone who has ill will towards your employer or people in general will ignore the sign, that is if they even see them. And, since I don't think it is generally known that firearms are prohibited, do you think it's logical to tell someone open carrying to put the pistol in their car when perhaps a half-dozen people have concealed firearms on the property at any moment you are open? Not to mention liability if a firearm is stolen out of the car. Additionally, what liability would your employer incur if someone did come in and cause harm... a situation that could have been prevented by my carrying a firearm? I am not a fan of litigation, but I would not only sue The Henry Ford, I would also sue anyone individually even remotely connected to the removal of my legal means of self-preservation.

I, like you, agree that it is ridiculous and myself and other guards are always concerned about this especially when collecting money. Some of us feel we should be allowed to carry and several of us shoot on a regular basis and would be more than comfortable doing so. However we do not live in that dream world, even though we have voiced our concerns before.

[drtodd]

The intention of my post was to inform the OP on the policy we have on guns and weapons. That is all, I at no point meant to start such a ridiculous argument as you have. I would be glad to pass on what you think to management but that wil get nowhere. You have assumed hat I am a spokesman for THF while I am not and just go off of the information we are given in briefings pertaining to guns. Don't be so serious man, its not very becoming 

I understand what you are saying, basically "don't shoot the messenger". My point was that he may have violated a "policy" but, policy does not equal law.
That being said, I don't know where you stand regarding your employer's policy, but banning firearms does not make sense. Anyone who has ill will towards your employer or people in general will ignore the sign, that is if they even see them. And, since I don't think it is generally known that firearms are prohibited, do you think it's logical to tell someone open carrying to put the pistol in their car when perhaps a half-dozen people have concealed firearms on the property at any moment you are open? Not to mention liability if a firearm is stolen out of the car. Additionally, what liability would your employer incur if someone did come in and cause harm... a situation that could have been prevented by my carrying a firearm? I am not a fan of litigation, but I would not only sue The Henry Ford, I would also sue anyone individually even remotely connected to the removal of my legal means of self-preservation.

I, like you, agree that it is ridiculous and myself and other guards are always concerned about this especially when collecting money. Some of us feel we should be allowed to carry and several of us shoot on a regular basis and would be more than comfortable doing so. However we do not live in that dream world, even though we have voiced our concerns before.

With the potential liability, I can understand not allowing guards to carry firearms. Not saying I agree with their choice to not arm their guards. I can also understand that if there were any trouble where the people involved could be carrying, I think that I would argue that you are not adequately prepared.
But, as a national school-safety expert said at my school district training last year, if a security guard doesn't carry a firearm, they aren't a guard, they are an usher.

[Glock9mmOldStyle]

The intention of my post was to inform the OP on the policy we have on guns and weapons. That is all, I at no point meant to start such a ridiculous argument as you have. I would be glad to pass on what you think to management but that wil get nowhere. You have assumed hat I am a spokesman for THF while I am not and just go off of the information we are given in briefings pertaining to guns. Don't be so serious man, its not very becoming 

I understand what you are saying, basically "don't shoot the messenger". My point was that he may have violated a "policy" but, policy does not equal law.
That being said, I don't know where you stand regarding your employer's policy, but banning firearms does not make sense. Anyone who has ill will towards your employer or people in general will ignore the sign, that is if they even see them. And, since I don't think it is generally known that firearms are prohibited, do you think it's logical to tell someone open carrying to put the pistol in their car when perhaps a half-dozen people have concealed firearms on the property at any moment you are open? Not to mention liability if a firearm is stolen out of the car. Additionally, what liability would your employer incur if someone did come in and cause harm... a situation that could have been prevented by my carrying a firearm? I am not a fan of litigation, but I would not only sue The Henry Ford, I would also sue anyone individually even remotely connected to the removal of my legal means of self-preservation.

I, like you, agree that it is ridiculous and myself and other guards are always concerned about this especially when collecting money. Some of us feel we should be allowed to carry and several of us shoot on a regular basis and would be more than comfortable doing so. However we do not live in that dream world, even though we have voiced our concerns before.

With the potential liability, I can understand not allowing guards to carry firearms. Not saying I agree with their choice to not arm their guards. I can also understand that if there were any trouble where the people involved could be carrying, I think that I would argue that you are not adequately prepared.
But, as a national school-safety expert said at my school district training last year, if a security guard doesn't carry a firearm, they aren't a guard, they are an usher.

  So true, I refer to unarmed guards as "bullet-stops". They are there as a "feel good measure". All guards who wish to carry should be allowed to due so in my opinion, to prohibit them from doing so is like saying because I could be trapped in my car after an accident I have removed the seat belts and the air bags! The very things that are supposed to keep you alive in the event of a calamity. Saying that arming guards could result in an accident etc... is no different, without a sidearm whats the point? Anyone can dial 911 as did many of the victims and survivors of recent massacres can attest to. If there had been an armed security staff at any of these tragic events the body count could have been reduced substantially, or the killers may have been detoured completely by armed guards

[drtodd]

The intention of my post was to inform the OP on the policy we have on guns and weapons. That is all, I at no point meant to start such a ridiculous argument as you have. I would be glad to pass on what you think to management but that wil get nowhere. You have assumed hat I am a spokesman for THF while I am not and just go off of the information we are given in briefings pertaining to guns. Don't be so serious man, its not very becoming 

I understand what you are saying, basically "don't shoot the messenger". My point was that he may have violated a "policy" but, policy does not equal law.
That being said, I don't know where you stand regarding your employer's policy, but banning firearms does not make sense. Anyone who has ill will towards your employer or people in general will ignore the sign, that is if they even see them. And, since I don't think it is generally known that firearms are prohibited, do you think it's logical to tell someone open carrying to put the pistol in their car when perhaps a half-dozen people have concealed firearms on the property at any moment you are open? Not to mention liability if a firearm is stolen out of the car. Additionally, what liability would your employer incur if someone did come in and cause harm... a situation that could have been prevented by my carrying a firearm? I am not a fan of litigation, but I would not only sue The Henry Ford, I would also sue anyone individually even remotely connected to the removal of my legal means of self-preservation.

I, like you, agree that it is ridiculous and myself and other guards are always concerned about this especially when collecting money. Some of us feel we should be allowed to carry and several of us shoot on a regular basis and would be more than comfortable doing so. However we do not live in that dream world, even though we have voiced our concerns before.

With the potential liability, I can understand not allowing guards to carry firearms. Not saying I agree with their choice to not arm their guards. I can also understand that if there were any trouble where the people involved could be carrying, I think that I would argue that you are not adequately prepared.
But, as a national school-safety expert said at my school district training last year, if a security guard doesn't carry a firearm, they aren't a guard, they are an usher.

  So true, I refer to unarmed guards as "bullet-stops". They are there as a "feel good measure". All guards who wish to carry should be allowed to due so in my opinion, to prohibit them from doing so is like saying because I could be trapped in my car after an accident I have removed the seat belts and the air bags! The very things that are supposed to keep you alive in the event of a calamity. Saying that arming guards could result in an accident etc... is no different, without a sidearm whats the point? Anyone can dial 911 as did many of the victims and survivors of recent massacres can attest to. If there had been an armed security staff at any of these tragic events the body count could have been reduced substantially, or the killers may have been detoured completely by armed guards

The best part of my district training, which included a large number of area LEOs, was when he emphatically stated that teachers with a permit should be able to carry if they want... and that every school should have a gun-locker with ar15s and shotguns in case of a shooter on campus. I was surprised when a majority of police officers clapped approval at that comment.

[heli724]

I don't care about their private property policy.  What I am wondering is that since they have a school on the grounds does that mean the whole property is considered a campus thus meaning off limits for guns?

[TheQ]

If Greenfield Village is a part of HFCC, then there is a perfectly enforceable criminal misdemeanor ordinance on the books.

[heli724]

So where would one find that information?

[TheQ]

We do some digging..

Step 1: http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/hfmgv.org This refers us to thehenryford.org
Step 2: http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/thehenryford.org Using this we can research:
Step 3: http://www.dleg.state.mi.us/bcs_corp/dt_corp.asp?id_nbr=772078&name_entity=HENRY%20FORD%20MUSEUM%20%26%20GREENFIELD%20VILLAGE  Seeing here we can read:

Searched for: HENRY FORD MUSEUM & GREENFIELD VILLAGE

ID Num: 772078
        
Assumed Names

Entity Name: THE EDISON INSTITUTE
Type of Entity: Domestic Nonprofit Corporation

Resident Agent: PATRICIA E MOORADIAN
Registered Office Address: 20900 OAKWOOD BLVD  DEARBORN   MI  48124

Mailing Address:   MI

Formed Under Act Number(s): 084-1921         

Incorporation/Qualification Date: 12-23-1929

Jurisdiction of Origin: MICHIGAN

Number of Shares: 0

Year of Most Recent Annual Report: 11

Year of Most Recent Annual Report With Officers & Directors: 09
Status: ACTIVE   Date: Present

Of course, this isn't legal advise and a jury could find as a matter of fact this isn't true, but it appears Greenfield Village is controlled by a Non-For-Profit organization.  This not-for-profit, of course, would have the rights of any other private entity.

[autosurgeon]

Oh yes when you know where to look and how you can dig up anything on anybody... well almost anybody

[TexasSupporter]

Wow, this was a fantastic read, even though I am a few months late getting to the discussion.  Well, the bottom line is, I think I came away with a better understanding of rights, and LAW versus mere POLICY.  I got the sense - from reading this back and forth between TheQ and the "unarmed guard" - that this probably resembles a lot of run-ins with the police by OCers in Michigan (especially before the groundwork was laid by MOC that paved the way for a better understanding and acceptance of our rights and of the law).  I mean, here you have probably a nice guy, the "unarmed guard" at The Henry Ford Museum, who nevertheless is willing to forsake rights and correct understanding of actual law for his assumptions and misguided zeal.  He doesn't get the difference between policy and law, a glaring error.  Its this kind of nonsense which has made it all the more difficult for the good guys to go about their lives, free to pursue liberty and defend their families.  Thank God for our noble Founders, who acknowledged that our rights are pre-existing and come from our Creator, and who documented these rights in the Constitution (and its Bill of Rights, as ratified in 1791).