TexasCHLforum.com

RiverKing wrote:"Do I think the Dallas Zoo is an amusement park - NO. Does it meet the current legal definition of one - sadly yes. "

I disagree. Unless the Dallas Zoo has changed a lot since I was last there, there are no "amusement rides" there. The only thing approaching an amusement ride at the Dallas Zoo was (is?) the monorail that carries people around certain animal enclosures at a safe height above the non-human animals that might be dangerous.

Read the statute. It defines amusement rides. The monorail meets the defined requirement. I don't like it. I don't think it meets legislative intent. But it is the law.

A quote:

"More importantly, the Court forgets that ours is a government of laws and not of men. That means we are governed by the terms of our laws, not by the unenacted will of our lawmakers. 'If Congress enacted into law something different from what it intended, then it should amend the statute to conform to its intent.' In the meantime, this Court 'has no roving license ... to disregard clear language simply on the view that ... Congress 'must have intended' something broader."

Antonin Scalia

rtschl wrote:To be honest, I was a little worried about the Dallas Zoo being able to successfully argue that they are an amusement park. Fort Worth and Houston Zoos are different and I think we will win those.

Do I think the Dallas Zoo is an amusement park - NO. Does it meet the current legal definition of one - sadly yes. I agree with Solaris:

Solaris wrote:This is the consequence of failing to strip out hospitals, amusement parks, churches,. etc. in 46.035. Instead they were left in, and (i) was added.

So this is on the legislature not the AG. Removing off limit areas and cleaning up 51% issues needs to be THE top priority next legislative session.

I agree ^^^. I think it meets the legal definition but not the intent of the legislature.