TexasCHLforum.com

Soccerdad1995 wrote: Anything is possible, but I am going to say it is unlikely that security cameras at the zoo have that level of zoom capability. Maybe the OP can confirm this point.

DevilDawg wrote:Color me jaded.. 1st post from a professed lurker? This sounds too much like the behavior of the Oranges, Chicken & Taco club. In your face and confrontational. IMHO we should use better tactics when dealing with these illegal posted signs.

Yes, the AG office is not in a rush. The gristmill of justice always turns slow, but it does grind exceedingly fine. At $10,000/Day in fines they will be broke if they levy them retroactively.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

TVGuy wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

TVGuy wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:
Based on this I'm guessing not. It sounds like he stayed at the zoo, openly carrying, and zoo security did nothing further. If the zoo officials had called the police, and this guy had been given a citation, then at least we would have had an opportunity for a judge to rule on the definition of "educational institution" in the law. Would a judge really want to make a precedent setting ruling in a hearing over a Class C misdemeanor? If so, that seems like a fairly low risk way to get a test case before a judge. I'm sure the person charged could get some fairly hefty donations to their legal defense fund as well.

The other potential test case will come after zoo officials are fined and they try the same "educational institution" argument as a defendant.

It sounds like he returned his weapon to the car before talking to the Director of Security to me. Hopefully he will correct us.

I didn't read that in his post.

This could be taken either way:

She restated the company policy bit, and asked me to return the gun to my car, and that I could speak to the director of security. I said sure.

After the part you quoted, he says that the director of security commented on his carrying in condition 1. That means the director of security had to have seen the weapon, so the guy still had it and did not return it to his car while waiting to talk to the director.

He also said that he enjoyed his visit and would return. If he had felt compelled to disarm, I doubt he would be eager to return.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

TVGuy wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:
Based on this I'm guessing not. It sounds like he stayed at the zoo, openly carrying, and zoo security did nothing further. If the zoo officials had called the police, and this guy had been given a citation, then at least we would have had an opportunity for a judge to rule on the definition of "educational institution" in the law. Would a judge really want to make a precedent setting ruling in a hearing over a Class C misdemeanor? If so, that seems like a fairly low risk way to get a test case before a judge. I'm sure the person charged could get some fairly hefty donations to their legal defense fund as well.

The other potential test case will come after zoo officials are fined and they try the same "educational institution" argument as a defendant.

It sounds like he returned his weapon to the car before talking to the Director of Security to me. Hopefully he will correct us.

I didn't read that in his post.

She restated the company policy bit, and asked me to return the gun to my car, and that I could speak to the director of security. I said sure.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:
Based on this I'm guessing not. It sounds like he stayed at the zoo, openly carrying, and zoo security did nothing further. If the zoo officials had called the police, and this guy had been given a citation, then at least we would have had an opportunity for a judge to rule on the definition of "educational institution" in the law. Would a judge really want to make a precedent setting ruling in a hearing over a Class C misdemeanor? If so, that seems like a fairly low risk way to get a test case before a judge. I'm sure the person charged could get some fairly hefty donations to their legal defense fund as well.

The other potential test case will come after zoo officials are fined and they try the same "educational institution" argument as a defendant.