Three people turned away from Gathering Place after bringing firearms

[SMS]

it's been a while since i've dealt with cities and zoning, but i don't believe merely zoning land for X immediately makes it X. In fact, often it's been my experience that it's the other way around. We have lots of empty land that is 'zoned' for multifamily living (i.e. apartments). But there are no apartments there (and often there might be homes on the property). It's not that the home is in violation, it's that the zoning came after the house and is part of 'the larger picture'. When things were zoned those folks had the chance to protest the zoning but might not have, banking on things being more valuable in a college town later. But if redevelopment occurs then it would have to comply the with zoning overlay going forward.

And often you can build things like churches (and probably parks) in areas zoned for lots of different uses.

But even zoning it for a park (which might actually be 'green space' or something 'outdoor' not actually 'city park') likely wouldn't change the ownership issues. And the land owner could always file for a rezoning since those things aren't set in stone.

I don't believe a city could simply 'zone' a dilapidated property as a park to force the teardown of a structure or anything like that.

Yeah, I didn't mean that zoning would settle it, just that it is an example of one aspect that could be used to build a case that the city intended the area to be a park, recreation area or fairground, because the law is silent about actual ownership of the land in this instance. Zoning, the terms and conditions of the lease/land transfer, makeup of the organization that runs it etc...can all come into play once this ends up in the legal arena, which hopefully it will.

 

[okie362]

And people wonder why I have no desire to live in or visit large cities.

 

[HiredHand]

I've said it before and I will say it again...I just don't understand open carry.

I don’t have a problem with open carry. The problem I have with most people that open carry is poor holster choices and a cavalier attitude towards openly carrying a weapon.

 

[bigred1]

I don’t have a problem with open carry. The problem I have with most people that open carry is poor holster choices and a cavalier attitude towards openly carrying a weapon.

Yeah, I know what you mean. Some of em get this smirk on their faces when they're doing it .
I open carry quite a bit but I don't strut around with my chest stuck out saying look at me, look at me like a lot of em I see.

 

[JD8]

If we get a dem controlled state congress, I can see making anyplace designated a park being made off limits, and depending on who the governor is, maybe signed.

Guess the "Republicans" better get their act together instead of expecting a rubber stamp.

 

[cktad]

I've said it before and I will say it again...I just don't understand open carry.

Let me explain it to you. Open carry is where people carry a gun where it can be seen unlike concealed carry where it is hidden. Most of the public is so clueless they never notice it but a few snow flakes do notice it and get all sacred and have to go to their safe place. Freedom terrifies them.

 

[Free Trapper]

Let me explain it to you. Open carry is where people carry a gun where it can be seen unlike concealed carry where it is hidden.

No Sh**!

I guess I should have said I don't understand "why" people open carry....Jeeeez!

 

[bigred1]

No Sh**!

I guess I should have said I don't understand "why" people open carry....Jeeeez!

Because they have the right to.

 

[travisstorma]

Radio said two of them were 'gun rights activists' that got turned away. I'm wondering if they are setting up a possible legal challenge to the rule.

 

[DavidMcmillan]

Another example of "just because you can doesn't mean you should". We really need to do a better job of thinking before we act. If this was an attempt to make a statement or set up a challenge, it sure gave the wrong impression.